What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4559730 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4559730?

Bailiff’S Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $678.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Gas: $207.84 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4537609 D…: $6,320.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $9,431.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4559730?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4559730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9967115-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4559730 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4559730?

Bailiff’S Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $678.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Gas: $207.84 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4537609 D…: $6,320.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $9,431.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4559730?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4559730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9967115-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Apartment [number suppressed] 76 Albert Street, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4559730 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Apartment [number suppressed] 76 Albert Street, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4559730 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4559730 — net $540.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$9,431.87		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$200.00		11. I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment.
Gas	$207.84		Gas
Bailiff’s fee	$200.00		11. I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment.
Previous order application 4537609 dated		$6,320.44	Previous order application 4537609 dated
Compensation for impeding access		$678.86	Compensation for impeding access
Exemplary damages for harassment		$2,500.00	Exemplary damages for harassment
Total award	$10,039.71	$9,499.30
Net award	$540.41
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$540.41

Claims and awards for application 4559730 — net $540.41 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $9,431.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 11. I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment.

Gas

Amount: $207.84
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Gas

Bailiff’s fee

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 11. I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment.

Previous order application 4537609 dated

Amount: $6,320.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Previous order application 4537609 dated

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Rent arrears

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address’s apartment number must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $540.41 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [Landlord]: $540.41 [Tenant]: $1,439.59

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone due to feeling unwell this morning.
The landlord has applied for rent and gas arrears, compensation, and payment out of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the landlord interfered with his reasonable peace by deactivating his access swipe card and seeks compensation and exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy began on 9 September 2022 and was ended by Tribunal order on 30 July 2023, although the tenant did not move out until 5 August 2023.
This tenancy has been subject to many applications and hearings. In summary: a. 7 December 2022, on a different landlord application, Adjudicator Allan ordered the tenant to pay $2,970.00 for rent arrears. b. 20 April 2023, on a different tenant application, Adjudicator Tam ordered the landlord to pay $6,320.44 for the landlord deactivating the tenant’s access card to the building and lift, and not providing a heater. c. 13 June 2023, Adjudicator Tam refused the landlord’s application for a rehearing. d. On 22 June 2023, on these applications, Adjudicator Maplesden in a telephone hearing ordered the tenant to pay $1,104.56 in rent arrears (which the tenant said was the correct amount of arrears once the $6,320.44 awarded in his favour was offset) and required the tenant to pay weekly rent from 23 June 2023 on pain of termination. e. On 27 July 2023, only the landlord appeared at the hearing. Adjudicator Northwood dismissed the tenant’s claim and ordered termination, rent arrears of $9,290.44, and outgoings of $147.84. f.On 12 January 2024, the Tribunal ordered a rehearing on these applications on the ground the tenant had been too unwell to attend the original hearing and had attempted to contact the Tribunal to ask for the matter to be adjourned.
The issues for determination are: a. Does the tenant owe rent arrears and outgoings, and if so, in what amount? b. Should the tenant compensate the landlord for the cost of cleaning? c. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord for the bailiff’s fee? d. Did the landlord continue to refuse to activate the tenant’s swipe card and thereby harass the tenant? And if so, what remedies should follow?

How much is owed for rent and gas?

The tenancy ended on 5 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal’s previous order in favour of the tenant of $6,320.44 is to be applied to what he owes the landlord.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy,
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment. I consider that amount is reasonable considering the three photographs the landlord produced. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord for the bailiff’s fee?
I had originally been minded to refusing the landlord’s request for reimbursement of the bailiff’s fee. That was because the landlord did not provide a receipt and if the tenant had attended the original hearing, the Tribunal might not have terminated the tenancy given the rent arrears are largely offset by the landlord’s breaches.
However, on reviewing the file, I see that Adjudicator Maplesden made a conditional termination order requiring the tenant to pay weekly rent. The tenant failed to do so, so the tenancy terminated for that reason.
The tenant should have voluntarily left the premises prior to the hearing before Adjudicator Northwood on 27 July 2023.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The landlord had the tenant’s access card for the apartment building deactivated. The tenant managed to borrow another tenant’s swipe card but that only allowed him to get into the building and up to the 17 th floor when his apartment was on the 20 th floor.
On 20 April 2023, Adjudicator Tam ordered the landlord to pay exemplary $1,500.00 for harassment and $1,300.00 for altering an access device without the tenant’s consent for this very thing. Legal principles
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. 1
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.
Black’s Law Dictionary 2 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English 3 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”. Discussion 1 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 2 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 3 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
The landlord did not reactivate the tenant’s card after the Tribunal’s decision on 20 April 2023 finding that it was unlawful. He applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision. The rehearing application was dismissed on 13 June 2023.
As a result, the tenant was deprived of proper access to his apartment even after the Tribunal’s finding on 20 April up until 22 June 2023 when the tenant told Adjudicator Maplesden that the access card was finally working again. The tenant had suffered a stress fracture in his knee so the additional walking up stairs was unwelcome.
I do not accept the landlord’s claim that the Body Corporate deactivated the tenant’s card without the landlord’s consent due to the landlord not being able to pay levies. That is not how body corporates operate. When asked for evidence that the body corporate had behaved in such an implausible fashion, the landlord could not provide anything. I do not find the landlord’s explanation credible. I agree with Adjudicator Tam’s findings that the landlord deactivated card. The circumstances of that were a considerable deliberate interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace and comfort. It was an aggressive act that I find amounted to harassment.
Accordingly, I find the landlord continued to harass the tenant by not reactivating the card he had deactivated despite the Tribunal’s ruling. Remedies
I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity at $74.25 per week (15 percent of the weekly rent). The total amount ordered for compensation is $678.86.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. 4
That the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally is beyond doubt. The Tribunal had delivered a decision telling the landlord he was committing an unlawful act, yet he persisted in it.
The tenant was deprived of the basic right of convenient access to the premises. The landlord felt justified in acting as he did because the tenant was in considerable rent arrears. However, that cannot justify the landlord breaching his obligations. It is in the public interest to mark the Tribunal’s intolerance of such blatant breaches of tenant rights by ordering exemplary damages. The 4 RTA, s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. purpose of the order is in particular to deter this landlord and others from similar acts.
Having regards to all the above, I set exemplary damages at $2,500.00. Non-publication
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.
Both parties seek non-publication. Each has been substantially successful 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 parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address apartment number must not be published.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4559730 — net $540.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$9,431.87		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$200.00		11. I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment.
Gas	$207.84		Gas
Bailiff’s fee	$200.00		11. I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment.
Previous order application 4537609 dated		$6,320.44	Previous order application 4537609 dated
Compensation for impeding access		$678.86	Compensation for impeding access
Exemplary damages for harassment		$2,500.00	Exemplary damages for harassment
Total award	$10,039.71	$9,499.30
Net award	$540.41
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$540.41

Claims and awards for application 4559730 — net $540.41 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $9,431.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 11. I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment.

Gas

Amount: $207.84
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Gas

Bailiff’s fee

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 11. I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment.

Previous order application 4537609 dated

Amount: $6,320.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Previous order application 4537609 dated

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Rent arrears

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address’s apartment number must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $540.41 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [Landlord]: $540.41 [Tenant]: $1,439.59

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone due to feeling unwell this morning.
The landlord has applied for rent and gas arrears, compensation, and payment out of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the landlord interfered with his reasonable peace by deactivating his access swipe card and seeks compensation and exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy began on 9 September 2022 and was ended by Tribunal order on 30 July 2023, although the tenant did not move out until 5 August 2023.
This tenancy has been subject to many applications and hearings. In summary: a. 7 December 2022, on a different landlord application, Adjudicator Allan ordered the tenant to pay $2,970.00 for rent arrears. b. 20 April 2023, on a different tenant application, Adjudicator Tam ordered the landlord to pay $6,320.44 for the landlord deactivating the tenant’s access card to the building and lift, and not providing a heater. c. 13 June 2023, Adjudicator Tam refused the landlord’s application for a rehearing. d. On 22 June 2023, on these applications, Adjudicator Maplesden in a telephone hearing ordered the tenant to pay $1,104.56 in rent arrears (which the tenant said was the correct amount of arrears once the $6,320.44 awarded in his favour was offset) and required the tenant to pay weekly rent from 23 June 2023 on pain of termination. e. On 27 July 2023, only the landlord appeared at the hearing. Adjudicator Northwood dismissed the tenant’s claim and ordered termination, rent arrears of $9,290.44, and outgoings of $147.84. f.On 12 January 2024, the Tribunal ordered a rehearing on these applications on the ground the tenant had been too unwell to attend the original hearing and had attempted to contact the Tribunal to ask for the matter to be adjourned.
The issues for determination are: a. Does the tenant owe rent arrears and outgoings, and if so, in what amount? b. Should the tenant compensate the landlord for the cost of cleaning? c. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord for the bailiff’s fee? d. Did the landlord continue to refuse to activate the tenant’s swipe card and thereby harass the tenant? And if so, what remedies should follow?

How much is owed for rent and gas?

The tenancy ended on 5 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal’s previous order in favour of the tenant of $6,320.44 is to be applied to what he owes the landlord.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy,
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the apartment. I consider that amount is reasonable considering the three photographs the landlord produced. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord for the bailiff’s fee?
I had originally been minded to refusing the landlord’s request for reimbursement of the bailiff’s fee. That was because the landlord did not provide a receipt and if the tenant had attended the original hearing, the Tribunal might not have terminated the tenancy given the rent arrears are largely offset by the landlord’s breaches.
However, on reviewing the file, I see that Adjudicator Maplesden made a conditional termination order requiring the tenant to pay weekly rent. The tenant failed to do so, so the tenancy terminated for that reason.
The tenant should have voluntarily left the premises prior to the hearing before Adjudicator Northwood on 27 July 2023.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The landlord had the tenant’s access card for the apartment building deactivated. The tenant managed to borrow another tenant’s swipe card but that only allowed him to get into the building and up to the 17 th floor when his apartment was on the 20 th floor.
On 20 April 2023, Adjudicator Tam ordered the landlord to pay exemplary $1,500.00 for harassment and $1,300.00 for altering an access device without the tenant’s consent for this very thing. Legal principles
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. 1
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.
Black’s Law Dictionary 2 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English 3 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”. Discussion 1 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 2 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 3 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
The landlord did not reactivate the tenant’s card after the Tribunal’s decision on 20 April 2023 finding that it was unlawful. He applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision. The rehearing application was dismissed on 13 June 2023.
As a result, the tenant was deprived of proper access to his apartment even after the Tribunal’s finding on 20 April up until 22 June 2023 when the tenant told Adjudicator Maplesden that the access card was finally working again. The tenant had suffered a stress fracture in his knee so the additional walking up stairs was unwelcome.
I do not accept the landlord’s claim that the Body Corporate deactivated the tenant’s card without the landlord’s consent due to the landlord not being able to pay levies. That is not how body corporates operate. When asked for evidence that the body corporate had behaved in such an implausible fashion, the landlord could not provide anything. I do not find the landlord’s explanation credible. I agree with Adjudicator Tam’s findings that the landlord deactivated card. The circumstances of that were a considerable deliberate interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace and comfort. It was an aggressive act that I find amounted to harassment.
Accordingly, I find the landlord continued to harass the tenant by not reactivating the card he had deactivated despite the Tribunal’s ruling. Remedies
I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity at $74.25 per week (15 percent of the weekly rent). The total amount ordered for compensation is $678.86.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. 4
That the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally is beyond doubt. The Tribunal had delivered a decision telling the landlord he was committing an unlawful act, yet he persisted in it.
The tenant was deprived of the basic right of convenient access to the premises. The landlord felt justified in acting as he did because the tenant was in considerable rent arrears. However, that cannot justify the landlord breaching his obligations. It is in the public interest to mark the Tribunal’s intolerance of such blatant breaches of tenant rights by ordering exemplary damages. The 4 RTA, s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. purpose of the order is in particular to deter this landlord and others from similar acts.
Having regards to all the above, I set exemplary damages at $2,500.00. Non-publication
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.
Both parties seek non-publication. Each has been substantially successful 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 parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address apartment number must not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4559730 — Rent arrears at Apartment [number suppressed] 76 Albert Street,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4559730 — Rent arrears at Apartment [number suppressed] 76 Albert Street,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and gas?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and gas?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions