How much money was awarded in case 4556910?

Compensation: bathroom items such as…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: bedroom suite, bedding…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Clothing: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: game consoles and lapt…: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: hall table, photos and…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Jewellery And Handbags: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: kettle, coffee machine…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: lounge suite, tables a…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refrigerator: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: TV, cabinet and DVD pl…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Work Tools: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556910?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9603170-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4556910?

Compensation: bathroom items such as…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: bedroom suite, bedding…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Clothing: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: game consoles and lapt…: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: hall table, photos and…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Jewellery And Handbags: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: kettle, coffee machine…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: lounge suite, tables a…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refrigerator: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: TV, cabinet and DVD pl…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Work Tools: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556910?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9603170-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Steven Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4556910 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4556910 about?

The tribunal order states: Ashik Homes Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $14,620.44 immediately, calculated

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4556910 — net $14,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: kettle, coffee machine, microwave toaster, crockery, cutlery, pots and pans and utensils	$1,500.00	kettle, coffee machine, microwave toaster, crockery, cutlery, pots and pans and utensils
Compensation: bathroom items such as hairdryer, linen and towels	$400.00	bathroom items such as hairdryer, linen and towels
Compensation: jewellery and handbags	$1,000.00	jewellery and handbags
Compensation: work tools	$2,000.00	work tools
Compensation: hall table, photos and mirrors	$500.00	hall table, photos and mirrors
Compensation: lounge suite, tables and chairs	$2,500.00	lounge suite, tables and chairs
Compensation: TV, cabinet and DVD player	$1,500.00	TV, cabinet and DVD player
Compensation: refrigerator	$750.00	refrigerator
Compensation: game consoles and laptop	$850.00	game consoles and laptop
Compensation: bedroom suite, bedding and TV	$2,000.00	bedroom suite, bedding and TV
Compensation: clothing	$800.00	clothing
Compensation: washing machine and vacuum cleaner	$800.00	washing machine and vacuum cleaner
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,620.44

Order

Ashik Homes Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $14,620.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 October 2023.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has taken and disposed his goods and belongings after the tenancy had been terminated by order of the Tribunal dated 3 April 2023.
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 (‘RTA’).
It is common ground that the landlord had unlawfully seized and disposed the tenant’s goods; the landlord did not dispose of the tenant’s goods pursuant to sections 62 to 62C RTA.
The facts leading to the tenant’s goods being seized and disposed off have been addressed and considered in the tenant’s application for exemplary damages for wrongful eviction filed under application 4548053.
In the Tribunal’s order of 18 May 2023, adjudicator M Edison summarised the relevant facts as follows. a. On 3 April 2023 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears. The order stated that possession was granted to the landlord at 3.15pm on Monday, 3 April 2023. The tenants were ordered to pay $1,035.44 for rent arrears and the filing fee. b. On 5 April 2023 the landlord texted the tenant saying they needed access to the property, and he needed to remove his dog. c. On 6 April 2023 the landlord emailed the guarantor requesting that $1,035.44 be paid to the landlord by 1pm on 11 April 2023 to recover household items from the property. If no payment was received, the items would be sold to recover costs. d. On 11 April 2023 the landlord texted the tenant, asking if he had arranged payment and removed his belongings from the property. e. On 13 April 2023 the landlord again requested that the tenant remove his dog. The tenant replied, stating that the landlord had taken a lot of items out of the house and requesting his partner’s jewellery back. f. In the early hours of 14 April 2023, the tenants returned to the property. The Police were called to remove them. Trespass notices were served. The landlord says the front door lock had been changed and the tenant broke the back door to gain access. The tenant says the back door was open and there is a text message that seems to support this (“Cops said no break-in. Don’t know how they entered”). g. On or about the afternoon of 14 April 2023 the landlord disposed of the household contents.
The adjudicator traversed the landlord’s breach of sections 33, 38(2), 46(2), 48, 62 and 63 RTA and ordered the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $3,500.00 to the tenant.
The adjudicator noted at [31] that there was no claim for compensation (before adjudicator Edison) and the tenant did not provide any evidence to support any claim for compensation for lost possessions. Adjudicator Edison’s award of exemplary damages only included an allowance for general damages for emotional distress but not actual loss of the tenant’s possessions.
The tenant has now filed this application for compensation and provided photographs taken in April 2023 as evidence to support his claim for compensation for lost possessions.
The tenant also provided a generic home contents checklist which was annotated to indicate the tenant’s total claim of lost possessions of some $58,150.00.
In response, the landlord submits that the tenant’s claim for lost possessions does not match the cost of $150.00 being spent by the landlord towards rubbish removal.
For the record, the amounts charged by Kiwi Waste & Recycling company was $284.00 plus GST, which comprise of 2 lots of $142.00 (plus GST) for general rubbish removal.
I acknowledge that it is not possible to reach a precise sum of actual loss suffered by the tenant in the circumstances.
As adjudicator Edison found at [25] through [29] of his 18 May 2023 order:
There was, however, a breach of section 33 of the Act, and therefore a further unlawful act. The landlord threatened to, and then carried out, the seizure of the tenant’s goods. Although initially the landlord said they were going to be sold as security for rent, from the invoice provided they appear to have been thrown away. At the hearing, the landlord said they removed his belongings and put them in the dump after giving him extra time to collect them. The landlord said she had emailed the tenant that if he paid the outstanding amount, she would open the door for him and he could collect his belongings, but there was no response.
I am not persuaded that the tenant was given much, if any, time to retrieve his possessions after the locks were changed. His evidence was that he had no chance of getting back in and he tried calling the landlord to retrieve his things, but the landlord hung up on him (in contrast, the landlord said she had to block his calls when he started to hassle her). It seems to me that the tenant’s reentry on 13 or 14 April 2023 may have been a last-ditch effort to retrieve his goods, but they had already gone. In the event, the tenant has lost all his possessions and some personal items that had meaning for him.
An award of exemplary damages for harassment does not cover this further unlawful act, which I consider to be serious. The first award reflects the tenant’s eviction from his home other than by due process of law. The breach of section 33 is connected to the loss of his personal property, again contrary to law. This means that a further award of exemplary damages may be justified.
The landlord did not comply with section 62 of the Act. While the landlord proposed a timeframe for the tenant to collect his belongings, and on her evidence failed to respond, that was not the end of the landlord’s obligations. There was still a requirement, after taking possession, to make reasonable efforts to agree with the tenant on a period of time for him to collect his goods (section 62(2)). The landlord then had to ensure personal documents (such as family photographs) were stored securely, and deal with the other goods either by selling them (section 62A) or applying to the Tribunal for an order for sale or other disposition of the goods (section 62B). If the landlord had decided to sell the goods (section 62A) they would have had to make all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of those goods. It seems likely that items such as jewellery and a TV would have had a value above the cost of storage and sale. In which case, they needed to be secured in storage for not less than 35 days. The landlord took none of these steps.
The tenant lost valuable items and items with emotional significance when he was locked out of the property. There seems to have been little time between the locks being changed and the goods being thrown away, perhaps only a day or so. The landlord’s decision showed a conscious disregard for the tenant’s rights under the Act, which are not made nugatory simply because the Tribunal has terminated the tenancy. The termination order was not enforced using the appropriate District Court process and there was an inappropriate attempt to link the return of the tenant’s belongings with payment of sums ordered by the Tribunal.
But the photographs adduced by the tenant, the annotated home contents checklist, the tenant’s viva voce evidence at the hearing, text messages from the tenant to the landlord requesting for items such as jewellery to be returned to the tenant, and common sense reasoning can assist the Tribunal to, as far as possible, reach an assessment of the tenant’s overall loss of belongings.
Judicial notice can be taken on usual items found in a household, including clothing, which the tenant and his partner must have possessed in some measure and had been using during their residence at the premises prior to the unlawful eviction and seizure of the tenant’s possessions being carried out by the landlord. The tenant testified that he is a mechanic and his work tools have also been seized by the landlord.
The Tribunal can reasonably assume that items of value such as work tools, jewellery, electronic items, dining suites and undamaged furniture may not necessarily have been disposed off as rubbish and one can safely assume that the landlord may have kept them separately from the items disposed of by the rubbish removal company. This accounts for the apparent variance between the actual rubbish removal costs incurred by the landlord against total value of lost items and belongings claimed by the tenant.
The landlord did not adduce any photograph of the items left behind by the tenant prior to them being disposed-off, the failure of which must be negatively viewed and inferred against the landlord. On the contrary, the tenant has adduced snapshots taken of items belonging to the tenant at the premises.
Itemising the tenant’s belongings as far as possible, I have valued the tenant’s loss as set out in the table above totalling $14,600.00.
The tenant is also entitled to reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee of $20.44 as the tenant has largely succeeded on the claim for compensation for lost possessions filed herein.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4556910 — net $14,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: kettle, coffee machine, microwave toaster, crockery, cutlery, pots and pans and utensils	$1,500.00	kettle, coffee machine, microwave toaster, crockery, cutlery, pots and pans and utensils
Compensation: bathroom items such as hairdryer, linen and towels	$400.00	bathroom items such as hairdryer, linen and towels
Compensation: jewellery and handbags	$1,000.00	jewellery and handbags
Compensation: work tools	$2,000.00	work tools
Compensation: hall table, photos and mirrors	$500.00	hall table, photos and mirrors
Compensation: lounge suite, tables and chairs	$2,500.00	lounge suite, tables and chairs
Compensation: TV, cabinet and DVD player	$1,500.00	TV, cabinet and DVD player
Compensation: refrigerator	$750.00	refrigerator
Compensation: game consoles and laptop	$850.00	game consoles and laptop
Compensation: bedroom suite, bedding and TV	$2,000.00	bedroom suite, bedding and TV
Compensation: clothing	$800.00	clothing
Compensation: washing machine and vacuum cleaner	$800.00	washing machine and vacuum cleaner
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,620.44

Order

Ashik Homes Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $14,620.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 October 2023.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has taken and disposed his goods and belongings after the tenancy had been terminated by order of the Tribunal dated 3 April 2023.
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 (‘RTA’).
It is common ground that the landlord had unlawfully seized and disposed the tenant’s goods; the landlord did not dispose of the tenant’s goods pursuant to sections 62 to 62C RTA.
The facts leading to the tenant’s goods being seized and disposed off have been addressed and considered in the tenant’s application for exemplary damages for wrongful eviction filed under application 4548053.
In the Tribunal’s order of 18 May 2023, adjudicator M Edison summarised the relevant facts as follows. a. On 3 April 2023 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears. The order stated that possession was granted to the landlord at 3.15pm on Monday, 3 April 2023. The tenants were ordered to pay $1,035.44 for rent arrears and the filing fee. b. On 5 April 2023 the landlord texted the tenant saying they needed access to the property, and he needed to remove his dog. c. On 6 April 2023 the landlord emailed the guarantor requesting that $1,035.44 be paid to the landlord by 1pm on 11 April 2023 to recover household items from the property. If no payment was received, the items would be sold to recover costs. d. On 11 April 2023 the landlord texted the tenant, asking if he had arranged payment and removed his belongings from the property. e. On 13 April 2023 the landlord again requested that the tenant remove his dog. The tenant replied, stating that the landlord had taken a lot of items out of the house and requesting his partner’s jewellery back. f. In the early hours of 14 April 2023, the tenants returned to the property. The Police were called to remove them. Trespass notices were served. The landlord says the front door lock had been changed and the tenant broke the back door to gain access. The tenant says the back door was open and there is a text message that seems to support this (“Cops said no break-in. Don’t know how they entered”). g. On or about the afternoon of 14 April 2023 the landlord disposed of the household contents.
The adjudicator traversed the landlord’s breach of sections 33, 38(2), 46(2), 48, 62 and 63 RTA and ordered the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $3,500.00 to the tenant.
The adjudicator noted at [31] that there was no claim for compensation (before adjudicator Edison) and the tenant did not provide any evidence to support any claim for compensation for lost possessions. Adjudicator Edison’s award of exemplary damages only included an allowance for general damages for emotional distress but not actual loss of the tenant’s possessions.
The tenant has now filed this application for compensation and provided photographs taken in April 2023 as evidence to support his claim for compensation for lost possessions.
The tenant also provided a generic home contents checklist which was annotated to indicate the tenant’s total claim of lost possessions of some $58,150.00.
In response, the landlord submits that the tenant’s claim for lost possessions does not match the cost of $150.00 being spent by the landlord towards rubbish removal.
For the record, the amounts charged by Kiwi Waste & Recycling company was $284.00 plus GST, which comprise of 2 lots of $142.00 (plus GST) for general rubbish removal.
I acknowledge that it is not possible to reach a precise sum of actual loss suffered by the tenant in the circumstances.
As adjudicator Edison found at [25] through [29] of his 18 May 2023 order:
There was, however, a breach of section 33 of the Act, and therefore a further unlawful act. The landlord threatened to, and then carried out, the seizure of the tenant’s goods. Although initially the landlord said they were going to be sold as security for rent, from the invoice provided they appear to have been thrown away. At the hearing, the landlord said they removed his belongings and put them in the dump after giving him extra time to collect them. The landlord said she had emailed the tenant that if he paid the outstanding amount, she would open the door for him and he could collect his belongings, but there was no response.
I am not persuaded that the tenant was given much, if any, time to retrieve his possessions after the locks were changed. His evidence was that he had no chance of getting back in and he tried calling the landlord to retrieve his things, but the landlord hung up on him (in contrast, the landlord said she had to block his calls when he started to hassle her). It seems to me that the tenant’s reentry on 13 or 14 April 2023 may have been a last-ditch effort to retrieve his goods, but they had already gone. In the event, the tenant has lost all his possessions and some personal items that had meaning for him.
An award of exemplary damages for harassment does not cover this further unlawful act, which I consider to be serious. The first award reflects the tenant’s eviction from his home other than by due process of law. The breach of section 33 is connected to the loss of his personal property, again contrary to law. This means that a further award of exemplary damages may be justified.
The landlord did not comply with section 62 of the Act. While the landlord proposed a timeframe for the tenant to collect his belongings, and on her evidence failed to respond, that was not the end of the landlord’s obligations. There was still a requirement, after taking possession, to make reasonable efforts to agree with the tenant on a period of time for him to collect his goods (section 62(2)). The landlord then had to ensure personal documents (such as family photographs) were stored securely, and deal with the other goods either by selling them (section 62A) or applying to the Tribunal for an order for sale or other disposition of the goods (section 62B). If the landlord had decided to sell the goods (section 62A) they would have had to make all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of those goods. It seems likely that items such as jewellery and a TV would have had a value above the cost of storage and sale. In which case, they needed to be secured in storage for not less than 35 days. The landlord took none of these steps.
The tenant lost valuable items and items with emotional significance when he was locked out of the property. There seems to have been little time between the locks being changed and the goods being thrown away, perhaps only a day or so. The landlord’s decision showed a conscious disregard for the tenant’s rights under the Act, which are not made nugatory simply because the Tribunal has terminated the tenancy. The termination order was not enforced using the appropriate District Court process and there was an inappropriate attempt to link the return of the tenant’s belongings with payment of sums ordered by the Tribunal.
But the photographs adduced by the tenant, the annotated home contents checklist, the tenant’s viva voce evidence at the hearing, text messages from the tenant to the landlord requesting for items such as jewellery to be returned to the tenant, and common sense reasoning can assist the Tribunal to, as far as possible, reach an assessment of the tenant’s overall loss of belongings.
Judicial notice can be taken on usual items found in a household, including clothing, which the tenant and his partner must have possessed in some measure and had been using during their residence at the premises prior to the unlawful eviction and seizure of the tenant’s possessions being carried out by the landlord. The tenant testified that he is a mechanic and his work tools have also been seized by the landlord.
The Tribunal can reasonably assume that items of value such as work tools, jewellery, electronic items, dining suites and undamaged furniture may not necessarily have been disposed off as rubbish and one can safely assume that the landlord may have kept them separately from the items disposed of by the rubbish removal company. This accounts for the apparent variance between the actual rubbish removal costs incurred by the landlord against total value of lost items and belongings claimed by the tenant.
The landlord did not adduce any photograph of the items left behind by the tenant prior to them being disposed-off, the failure of which must be negatively viewed and inferred against the landlord. On the contrary, the tenant has adduced snapshots taken of items belonging to the tenant at the premises.
Itemising the tenant’s belongings as far as possible, I have valued the tenant’s loss as set out in the table above totalling $14,600.00.
The tenant is also entitled to reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee of $20.44 as the tenant has largely succeeded on the claim for compensation for lost possessions filed herein.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556910 — Cleanliness at 25 Steven Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556910 — Cleanliness at 25 Steven Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions