How much money was awarded in case 4559370?

Compensation: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4559370?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4559370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9659020-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4559370?

Compensation: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4559370?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4559370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9659020-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4559370 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4559370 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4559370 — net $3,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,520.44

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Geoffrey Campbell Gavin Brown, Mission Downs Trustee Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

By consent, the landlord may retain the bond in the sum of $500 in full and final settlement of the landlords’ claims for compensation relating to the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on 1 November 2023. Ms Wedlake of counsel represented the respondents.

This order follows my order made on 26 October 2023 determining that this was a residential tenancy, and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenants’ application. The reasons given in that order should be read in conjunction with this order.

In my order made on 11 September 2023, I clarified that the tenants’ claims included compensation and exemplary damages for the respondents’ breach of their obligations in respect of the condition of the premises and interference with the applicants’ quiet enjoyment in their use of the premises.

Ms Wedlake was not shown that order until recently and so her submissions which were filed on 25 October were limited to the claims made in the tenants’ application form. That said, in my view, she made the points that were reasonably available to the respondents to make in relation to quiet enjoyment. She objected to the Tribunal considering any claims that were not expressly notified to the respondents such the claim for the cost of storage costs, which the tenants raised at the latest hearing. I accept the point but there are inevitably costs associated with moving premises and I am entitled to take that into consideration as part of assessing reasonable compensation. The Landlords’ Claims

The landlords’ have not made their own application, but they wish to make claims against the bond in relation to damage to the premises during the tenancy. The tenants readily admitted that there was damage to two doors and a window, and they accepted responsibility for the damage.

The landlords limit their claim to the $500 bond and the tenants agreed that the landlords could retain the bond. I have therefore made a consent order to that effect. Tenants’ Claims

Broadly, the tenants make two types of claims. One is relation to the condition of the premises. The other is in relation to the way that the landlords treated them during the tenancy. I will deal first with the condition of the premises. The Condition of the Premises

Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and must comply with all legislative requirements relating to buildings, health and safety that relate to the premises.

The first point is that because this tenancy began before 1 July 2021, the most recent Healthy Homes Regulations do not apply to the premises. Therefore, the tenants’ complaint that there was no heat pump must fail. There was a heat source and so the premises were compliant in that respect.

The tenants also complained that some of the windows in the premises could not be opened. The requirement is that each room in the premises has a window that can be opened. The tenants confirmed that was the case. The premises were therefore compliant in that respect.

The tenants complained that carpet in the premises was in poor condition. That was proved by photographs provided by the tenants. In one area of the lounge, the carpet was completely threadbare. The tenants said that carpet in the second bedroom was in poor condition. There was also a broken power outlet which could, potentially, have been an electrical hazard.

Mr Brown said that there was no ingoing inspection and there was only one inspection during the three-year tenancy, in July 2023.

In these respects, the landlords were in breach of their obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state on repair. Ms Wedlake submitted that I must consider the age and character of the premises, the improvements that the landlord made to the premises and their record of responding to maintenance issues as they arose.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) expressly requires the Tribunal to consider the age and character of the premises. Plainly, the tenants were not entitled to expect a palace. This was a cabin in a [redacted] provided at a modest rent. Yet, there are standards below which no rented premises should fall. In my view, there is no excuse for the condition of the carpet or the power outlet. Landlords do not receive credits for complying with their obligations to be set off against their failure to comply with other obligations. Landlords are expected to comply with all their obligations.

Ms Wedlake made the general point that the landlords believed that this was not a tenancy and therefore the necessary intention required for an award of exemplary damages is not present. I do question whether the landlords genuinely believed that the tenants’ occupation of the premises was excluded from the operation of the Act.

That issue turned on whether the landlords intended the premises to be occupied for periods not exceeding 50 days at a time. The tenants’ occupation lasted more than three years and there are others living on the site in a similar position. Given that the agreement has all the hallmarks of a residential tenancy, I struggle with the proposition that Mr Brown did not turn his mind to the issue and consider the possibility that the arrangement would fall within the Act.

But I accept that the threshold for exemplary damages, in terms of intention, is a high one, I find that an award should not be made in this case.

The tenants are entitled to compensation for having to put up with carpet that was well below the standard they were entitled to and for the broken power point. An award of $500 compensation is reasonable. Discrimination

The tenants assert that the landlords discriminated against them in the sense that they took the word of others against them and did not properly consider their side of the story. This related to incidents of complaints about excessive noise from the premises, domestic arguments and one incident involving violence at the premises.

I will come to the details, but in terms of discrimination the Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction. In this case jurisdiction would exist only is there was discrimination against the tenants based on their skin colour (the tenants are brown skinned) in respect of the termination of the tenancy.

The difficulty with such a claim is that the landlords granted the tenancy to the tenants, and the tenancy continued for three years. One of the tenant’s parents live on the site. There are other brown skinned people living on the site. I can understand why the tenants make the complaint because they feel, with justification, that they were unfairly treated in relation to the termination. But I find that was more likely because the landlords were not cognisant of the tenants’ rights rather than because of their skin colour. Power

The tenants claim that the landlords overcharged them for power used in the premises. The landlords used a check meter for the premises to calculate the power usage and then applied a unit charge and other charges based on the power bill they paid for power used at the park.

The landlords also applied a subsidy to the power cost. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement about a subsidy and it seems that it was a hangover from days then the cost of power was included in the tariff. The landlords phased the subsidy out over time.

Having considered the power bills the landlord has provided and the circumstances generally, I find that there has been no overcharging for power and this claim is dismissed. Termination and Quiet Enjoyment

The way that the tenants’ occupation was ended, and they were evicted from the premises is the most serious aspect of this case. The landlords served them with a 14-day notice and then evicted them by serving them with a Trespass Notice and bringing in the Police to remove them.

The landlords had received a complaint about an incident of violence between the tenants. The parties gave differing accounts of the circumstances. Mr Brown did not witness the incident and he relied on what he was told by another resident. I prefer the tenants’ evidence on this point. I was impressed with their honesty. They gave their evidence in a manner that was strongly indicative of honesty.

There was no hesitation in the way they answered questions, they readily made admissions against themselves, and their evidence was consistent with other evidence in the case and with such documentary evidence as there was. I am not suggesting that Mr Brown was not honest. I simply found the tenants to be distinctly reliable witnesses.

The tenants said that there was an incident where one of them was having what they described as a “meltdown” and the other tenant was very concerned about her. He was so concerned that he called the Police who attended. The incident was resolved without any harm. The tenants said that no one on site intervened in the situation.

Mr Brown told the tenants that someone had witnessed the incident and had intervened and then reported the incident to him. He would not tell the tenants who that person was for reasons of privacy. That does not make any sense, because if the person had intervened, the tenants would be aware of who it was. If the person who reported the incident to Mr Brown wanted to remain anonymous, plainly they did not intervene during the incident.

I accept that no one intervened in the incident. I note that the landlords did not produce any evidence from the alleged intervener.

Immediately after the incident, Mr Brown served a termination notice on the tenants. Because they were tenants, the tenancy could not be terminated in that way. If the landlords believed that they had disturbed other residents, the proper course was to serve them with a breach notice. If the tenants continued causing a disturbance, the landlords could have applied to the Tribunal for termination. The Tribunal could then have decided if it was reasonable to terminate the tenancy.

These protections are very important because they give tenants the ability to dispute the claims that are made against them and give the Tribunal the opportunity to establish what the circumstances are and consider whether they warrant termination. Even aside from the Act, I find the landlords’ behaviour unreasonable. The tenants were justifiably resentful that Mr Brown accepted the word of another resident without giving hearing or considering their side.

The landlords’ actions constituted a serious breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises. Arguably, an unlawful and unfair eviction is the worst example of such a breach.

I am not going to award exemplary damages. Partly for the same reason I have not awarded them for the condition of the premises. Partly because the eviction was a single act and so does not constitute harassment. Although because it continued for 14 days and ended with a trespass notice and the Police, the converse is also arguable.

But the tenants are entitled to compensation. The effects of the termination and eviction were profound.

The tenants had taken advice from Tenancy Services, and they believed that they were entitled to stay. The Police took a different view, and they were forced to leave. They had to leave in a hurry, and they had not arranged anywhere to move to. They moved into a house occupied by family members. That was a house that was already fully occupied and so they and their child had to squeeze into one room. They remained in that situation for two months before they moved to suitable accommodation.

The tenants moved to [City], but they have left their daughter at the school local to the premises until the end of this year. They have therefore had the inconvenience and expense of travelling between [City] and the school a round trip of some 50kms.

There is also the humiliation and upset caused by the eviction. It was obvious to me that the tenants feel deeply the unfairness of the way that they were treated. Plainly there is justification for feeling that way.

I find that an award in the sum of $3,000 is reasonable. Filing Fee

The tenants have had significant success and so I have awarded them the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4559370 — net $3,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,520.44