What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4553061 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4553061?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4553061?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4553061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9312604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4553061 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4553061?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4553061?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4553061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9312604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Street address], Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4553061 — Rent arrears

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 to [the landlord] immediately.
[The tenants] must pay [the landlord] $9,480.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing.
The landlord’s father who managed the tenancy attended for his son. For simplicity, I will refer to the landlord’s father as “the landlord” in this decision.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 6 August 2023.
The landlord applies for rent and water arrears and compensation.
The tenants seek exemplary damages and compensation for the landlord failing to lodge the bond withing the statutory period and for interfering with the quiet enjoyment and reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.

How much do the tenants owe for rent and water?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the rent arrears.
The landlord handed up two water rates invoices. However, these had not been adjusted to remove the fixed charges and the landlord did not provide a water summary setting out how the landlord had charged the tenants for water during the tenancy. I am not confident the landlord did not pass on the fixed charges that the landlord was required to pay. I decline to make an award in respect to water arrears.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Tenant are liable for intentional or careless damage to the premises.
During the tenancy, a door frame got split and a window was broken.
The tenants accept responsibility for the door frame. The landlord has an invoice that included the repair of the door frame along with other things. I set the cost of repair of the door at $150.00.

Did the landlord breach his bond lodgement duties?

The tenants claim 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: s 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond within the requisite time. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The landlord says that he did not know he had to lodge the bond. He did so immediately after the mediation during which he found out he did have to lodge it.
Section 109(3) of the RTA provides that 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.
Therefore, before considering whether it would be just to award exemplary damages against the tenant, I must first decide whether the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. 1
The landlord says he was unaware of his obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. He thought he could hold onto it himself, which is what she did. I accept the landlord was unaware of his obligation to lodge the bond.
However, landlords may not avoid the RTA exemplary damages regime by pleading ignorance of the law. They are deemed to know the law prohibiting the unlawful act. Further, the Tribunal may decide that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally as required by s 109(3) by inferring intention from the landlord’s deemed knowledge in the circumstances that existed. 2 As Harrop DCJ recently said (where a landlord committed the unlawful acts of failing to provide insulation and insurance statements): 3 The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware of despite there being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law. 1 See for example, Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls North Shore TT548/92, 29 June 1993 at 20. Approved in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 at [38]. 2 Although not specifically mentioned in Sweeney (discussed below), I think to decide intentionality (or not) the Tribunal should first consider the facts as they existed at the time the unlawful act was committed but with the unlawful actor being deemed to have knowledge of the law. 3 T.M.T v Sweeney & Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at [37].
The rule that the landlord must lodge the bond on receipt is fundamental and widely known. It is appropriate to deem that the landlord knew the rule.
I reconstruct the events in my mind lest I race to an incorrect conclusion of intentionality: I envisage the landlord receiving the bond but knowing the law and I ask myself: was the failure intentional?
There is a natural and logical inference that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond. There is nothing before me to disturb the conclusion to be drawn from that inference.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was intentional.
I move to consider whether exemplary damages should be awarded and in what amount.
I 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.
The landlord is assumed to have intended not to lodge the bond.
The effect of the unlawful act is that it tends to threaten the integrity of the system for bond collection. Tenants and the public are entitled to trust the system will protect client funds. The funds are needed to help fund tenancy services. The bond is the tenant’s money; it is not the landlord’s money. The unlawful act may amount to fraud.
It is in the tenants’ interests that she is awarded exemplary damages.
The public interest calls for an award of exemplary damages. It is important to promote trust in the integrity of the bond system. Strict compliance is to be encouraged, which means non-compliance should be firmly deterred by orders of exemplary damages.
For these reasons I find it would be just to award exemplary damages.
This is a first known instance of such a breach by this landlord. I treat the breach as a first breach of its type.
I order the landlord to pay about one third of the maximum, which results in an order of $500.00 for exemplary damages. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and reasonable privacy?
A landlord must not interfere with the quiet enjoyment or reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord went around to the premises after 8:00pm to talk to the tenants about rent arrears without having made any prior arrangement. I consider that was an interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. Mores seriously than that, on 18 April 2023 the landlord issued the tenants with a trespass notice to stay off the premises. That led the tenants to take the day off work and caused them distress.
The landlord said he had got advice at the local police station about the situation and he had been told he could issue a trespass notice. It was only later in the day, another police officer explained that he could not trespass the tenants from their own home.
Although, the landlord’s conduct serious interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, it was based on inaccurate advice and possibly communication difficulties. I do not find it proven that the conduct amounts to harassment.
I find the landlord did not commit an unlawful act. That being so, exemplary damages are not available for the interferences.
Compensation is required, however. The landlord’s actions led to the tenants having to take the day off work and to them feeling uncomfortable in their own home. Overall, I consider they suffered a significant loss of amenity in the tenancy.
I order compensation of $1,000.00 for the landlords interfering in the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. Bond
The bond is to be paid to the landlord in part-payment of the tenants’ debt. Non-publication
The parties seek orders for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address. Addendum
I note the tenants and the landlord agreed that the tenants will pay their debt to the landlord at the rate of $80.00 per week.
The landlord does not intend to enforce this order if the tenants repay the debt as agreed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4553061 — Rent arrears at [Street address], Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

Tenancy Tribunal case 4553061 — Rent arrears at [Street address], Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

Order

Reasons

How much do the tenants owe for rent and water?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach his bond lodgement duties?

Order

Reasons

How much do the tenants owe for rent and water?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach his bond lodgement duties?