What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4561690 about?

The tribunal order states: Robert David Calder and Deborah Taylor must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44

How much money was awarded in case 4561690?

Compensation: Loss of accommodation…: $1,980.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4561690?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4561690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9603762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4561690 about?

The tribunal order states: Robert David Calder and Deborah Taylor must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44

How much money was awarded in case 4561690?

Compensation: Loss of accommodation…: $1,980.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4561690?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4561690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9603762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16D Tamumu Road, Waipawa, Waipawa 4210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4561690 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4561690 — net $6,750.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide written agreement	$750.00	Failure to provide written agreement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$1,000.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Loss of accommodation supplement	$1,980.00	Loss of accommodation supplement
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice	$3,000.00	Retaliatory Notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,750.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,750.44

Order

Robert David Calder and Deborah Taylor must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately calculated in the table below.
Both parties seek an Order for suppression of their identifying details. The tenant’s claims have been upheld so suppression of her details is appropriate. There is no basis for the landlords’ identifying details to be supressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 5 February 2022 and ended on 13 May 2023. Written Tenancy Agreement
[The tenant/s] claims the landlords did not ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords acknowledge that no written agreement was prepared or provided and they have therefore committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence shows no basis for the landlords to have breached this obligation, apart from their preference to keep this as what they termed a “private” arrangement.
The tenant specifically asked for written confirmation of the agreement in a txt to the landlords dated 27 March 2022, shortly after the tenancy began, in which she said, “Hi, can you please put something in writing stating the amount of the rent I pay and the frequency.......I need this quite urgently for an application. An e-mail would be fine. Thank you.”
The landlords replied “Hi [tenant] is this assistance from govt or a private institution? It’s just that we can’t go through the proper channels as we aren’t registered as landlords.”
The landlords were not able to satisfactorily explain what registration they were referring to, beyond saying that they thought they were entitled to come to an informal, “handshake” arrangement with the tenant.
What the correspondence clearly shows is an awareness by the landlords that there were proper channels they should be using but which they preferred not to engage with – resulting in fundamental failures of their obligations as landlords. This is not their first tenancy. Nothing in the evidence provides a justification for their failure to provide the basics of a written tenancy agreement - particularly after it was specifically requested by the tenant.
There was a significant negative impact on the tenant (addressed below in assessing the tenant’s compensation claim).
There is an obvious public interest in discouraging landlords from avoiding “proper channels” when it suits them to do so.
I find that the maximum award of exemplary damages is appropriate. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
[The tenant/s] claims the landlords did not lodge the bond of $760.00 she paid to them with the Bond Centre within the required time. Again, there is no dispute that this is true. The bond was never lodged. It was returned to the tenant by the landlords promptly after the tenancy ended.
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.
In looking at the s.109(3) criteria (above) I note a txt from the landlords to the tenant when the tenancy was being put in place saying, “....2 wks bond and 2 wks in advance. All good? Let me know if you are unsure on anything. I have a generic tenancy agreement if you want us to sign together......we just won’t be lodging it”
I cannot interpret that txt as other than showing that the landlords were aware of the bond lodgement system and the obligations on them in dealing with the tenant’s bond but chose to bypass them in their own interests.
In assessing the exemplary damages considerations referred to above, I take into account that there is no evidence of a direct loss or measurable negative impact on the tenant from the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond. Her bond was returned to her.
Again though, the public interest in landlords complying with what is a fundamental feature of residential tenancy processes, needs to be taken into account. I assess exemplary damages of $1,000.00 against the $1,500.00 maximum. Notice of Termination
On 28 April 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 1 July 2023. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant had the opportunity to visit her brother in Canada for up to 2 months. She planned to have a friend house sit the premises while she was away. Her intention was that she would continue to pay the rent and her friend would look after the place and cover outgoings.
The tenant’s evidence is that after speaking with Tenancy Services about the appropriate approach she contacted the landlords to let them know of her plans. She says the landlords refused to entertain the idea and said that they would not have people they did not know in their house. They offered to find someone to look after the premises while the tenant was away. The tenant declined that offer.
After a heated exchange over the issue between the tenant and Mr Calder, the following day the landlords issued the tenant a 63 day termination notice requiring that she vacate the premises by 1 July 2023 on the basis that the landlords required it as their principal residence within 90 days of termination date.
The tenant’s evidence is that because she was due to leave for overseas shortly after termination date, she had to delay her travel and make temporary accommodation arrangements for before and after her travel. She moved out of the premises on 13 May 2023.
The landlords’ evidence is that because of the circumstances, where they also live on the property in a cabin type dwelling and have valuable plant and equipment on site, they could not consider having someone they did not know living in the premises, for security reasons.
They say it had been their intention for some time to move out of the cabin and back into the premises – probably around Christmas 2023. With the tenant intending to be away for an extended period they say it made sense for them and for her to bring their plans forward so the tenant would not be getting a termination notice soon after arriving home. Their evidence is that they have now moved back into the premises as their home.
In terms of s.44(2) and (3), unless there is a term in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting with possession, “.....the tenant may at any time during the tenancy sublet or otherwise part with possession of the premises with the prior written consent of the landlord and in accordance with any conditions attached to that consent by the landlord...... The landlord shall not withhold that consent unreasonably, nor attach any unreasonable conditions to it.”
There may have been reasonable reasons for the landlords not to consent to the tenant’s proposed subletting or housesitting arrangements or to have conditions attaching to their consent. They nevertheless had an obligation to give the tenant’s request reasonable consideration, which they didn’t.
The landlords had offered to find someone else to housesit in the tenant’s absence, indicating they were otherwise comfortable with the tenancy continuing.
While there may have been other factors at play as well, the evidence satisfies me that in issuing the notice and the particular timing of it, the landlords must have been motivated at least in part by the tenant seeking to exercise her legitimate subletting rights.
The landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act.
In assessing the appropriate award of exemplary damages, I take into account that the landlords may well have had intentions to move back into the premises themselves that predated the above issues and which may have provided a legitimate basis for giving notice of termination to the tenant. I take into account as well that the notice was given in the context of the tenant not intending to reside in the property for some time.
The impact on the tenant was significant in that rather than being able to go on her planned travel and return to her home, she was required to find other places to stay, in pressured circumstances.
The public interest requires that termination notices are not used as a means of preventing tenants exercising their legitimate rights.
Weighing those considerations, I find that an award of $2,500.00 of the maximum of $6,500.00 would be appropriate. Compensation
The landlords breached their obligations to the tenant by refusing to supply her with a written tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that breach caused her a financial loss because when she went to visit WINZ for accommodation assistance, she was told that on the basis of the information the tenant gave them about the amount of rent she was paying and her other circumstances, she would be entitled to an accommodation supplement of between $30.00 and $100.00 per week. The tenant was told she would need to provide written confirmation of her rent obligations, which prompted her to ask the landlord for that confirmation (the txt on 27 March 2022 quoted above). She says that because the landlord would not provide it, she was not able to get the supplemental financial support she had sought and is out of pocket by at least $30.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
I have no reason to disbelieve the tenant’s evidence in that regard though I note that this compensation request was not included in the tenant’s initial letter of demand to the landlords.
It was made clear to the landlords at the time that the tenant needed written confirmation of the rent to seek financial support, so it must have been obvious to them that she might suffer financial loss if they refused.
I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlords’ breach caused the tenant a loss of at least $30.00 per week for the 66 weeks of the tenancy. The tenant is entitled to compensation accordingly.
Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with claims brought, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4561690 — net $6,750.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide written agreement	$750.00	Failure to provide written agreement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$1,000.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Loss of accommodation supplement	$1,980.00	Loss of accommodation supplement
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory Notice	$3,000.00	Retaliatory Notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,750.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,750.44

Order

Robert David Calder and Deborah Taylor must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately calculated in the table below.
Both parties seek an Order for suppression of their identifying details. The tenant’s claims have been upheld so suppression of her details is appropriate. There is no basis for the landlords’ identifying details to be supressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 5 February 2022 and ended on 13 May 2023. Written Tenancy Agreement
[The tenant/s] claims the landlords did not ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords acknowledge that no written agreement was prepared or provided and they have therefore committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence shows no basis for the landlords to have breached this obligation, apart from their preference to keep this as what they termed a “private” arrangement.
The tenant specifically asked for written confirmation of the agreement in a txt to the landlords dated 27 March 2022, shortly after the tenancy began, in which she said, “Hi, can you please put something in writing stating the amount of the rent I pay and the frequency.......I need this quite urgently for an application. An e-mail would be fine. Thank you.”
The landlords replied “Hi [tenant] is this assistance from govt or a private institution? It’s just that we can’t go through the proper channels as we aren’t registered as landlords.”
The landlords were not able to satisfactorily explain what registration they were referring to, beyond saying that they thought they were entitled to come to an informal, “handshake” arrangement with the tenant.
What the correspondence clearly shows is an awareness by the landlords that there were proper channels they should be using but which they preferred not to engage with – resulting in fundamental failures of their obligations as landlords. This is not their first tenancy. Nothing in the evidence provides a justification for their failure to provide the basics of a written tenancy agreement - particularly after it was specifically requested by the tenant.
There was a significant negative impact on the tenant (addressed below in assessing the tenant’s compensation claim).
There is an obvious public interest in discouraging landlords from avoiding “proper channels” when it suits them to do so.
I find that the maximum award of exemplary damages is appropriate. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
[The tenant/s] claims the landlords did not lodge the bond of $760.00 she paid to them with the Bond Centre within the required time. Again, there is no dispute that this is true. The bond was never lodged. It was returned to the tenant by the landlords promptly after the tenancy ended.
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.
In looking at the s.109(3) criteria (above) I note a txt from the landlords to the tenant when the tenancy was being put in place saying, “....2 wks bond and 2 wks in advance. All good? Let me know if you are unsure on anything. I have a generic tenancy agreement if you want us to sign together......we just won’t be lodging it”
I cannot interpret that txt as other than showing that the landlords were aware of the bond lodgement system and the obligations on them in dealing with the tenant’s bond but chose to bypass them in their own interests.
In assessing the exemplary damages considerations referred to above, I take into account that there is no evidence of a direct loss or measurable negative impact on the tenant from the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond. Her bond was returned to her.
Again though, the public interest in landlords complying with what is a fundamental feature of residential tenancy processes, needs to be taken into account. I assess exemplary damages of $1,000.00 against the $1,500.00 maximum. Notice of Termination
On 28 April 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 1 July 2023. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant had the opportunity to visit her brother in Canada for up to 2 months. She planned to have a friend house sit the premises while she was away. Her intention was that she would continue to pay the rent and her friend would look after the place and cover outgoings.
The tenant’s evidence is that after speaking with Tenancy Services about the appropriate approach she contacted the landlords to let them know of her plans. She says the landlords refused to entertain the idea and said that they would not have people they did not know in their house. They offered to find someone to look after the premises while the tenant was away. The tenant declined that offer.
After a heated exchange over the issue between the tenant and Mr Calder, the following day the landlords issued the tenant a 63 day termination notice requiring that she vacate the premises by 1 July 2023 on the basis that the landlords required it as their principal residence within 90 days of termination date.
The tenant’s evidence is that because she was due to leave for overseas shortly after termination date, she had to delay her travel and make temporary accommodation arrangements for before and after her travel. She moved out of the premises on 13 May 2023.
The landlords’ evidence is that because of the circumstances, where they also live on the property in a cabin type dwelling and have valuable plant and equipment on site, they could not consider having someone they did not know living in the premises, for security reasons.
They say it had been their intention for some time to move out of the cabin and back into the premises – probably around Christmas 2023. With the tenant intending to be away for an extended period they say it made sense for them and for her to bring their plans forward so the tenant would not be getting a termination notice soon after arriving home. Their evidence is that they have now moved back into the premises as their home.
In terms of s.44(2) and (3), unless there is a term in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting with possession, “.....the tenant may at any time during the tenancy sublet or otherwise part with possession of the premises with the prior written consent of the landlord and in accordance with any conditions attached to that consent by the landlord...... The landlord shall not withhold that consent unreasonably, nor attach any unreasonable conditions to it.”
There may have been reasonable reasons for the landlords not to consent to the tenant’s proposed subletting or housesitting arrangements or to have conditions attaching to their consent. They nevertheless had an obligation to give the tenant’s request reasonable consideration, which they didn’t.
The landlords had offered to find someone else to housesit in the tenant’s absence, indicating they were otherwise comfortable with the tenancy continuing.
While there may have been other factors at play as well, the evidence satisfies me that in issuing the notice and the particular timing of it, the landlords must have been motivated at least in part by the tenant seeking to exercise her legitimate subletting rights.
The landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act.
In assessing the appropriate award of exemplary damages, I take into account that the landlords may well have had intentions to move back into the premises themselves that predated the above issues and which may have provided a legitimate basis for giving notice of termination to the tenant. I take into account as well that the notice was given in the context of the tenant not intending to reside in the property for some time.
The impact on the tenant was significant in that rather than being able to go on her planned travel and return to her home, she was required to find other places to stay, in pressured circumstances.
The public interest requires that termination notices are not used as a means of preventing tenants exercising their legitimate rights.
Weighing those considerations, I find that an award of $2,500.00 of the maximum of $6,500.00 would be appropriate. Compensation
The landlords breached their obligations to the tenant by refusing to supply her with a written tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that breach caused her a financial loss because when she went to visit WINZ for accommodation assistance, she was told that on the basis of the information the tenant gave them about the amount of rent she was paying and her other circumstances, she would be entitled to an accommodation supplement of between $30.00 and $100.00 per week. The tenant was told she would need to provide written confirmation of her rent obligations, which prompted her to ask the landlord for that confirmation (the txt on 27 March 2022 quoted above). She says that because the landlord would not provide it, she was not able to get the supplemental financial support she had sought and is out of pocket by at least $30.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
I have no reason to disbelieve the tenant’s evidence in that regard though I note that this compensation request was not included in the tenant’s initial letter of demand to the landlords.
It was made clear to the landlords at the time that the tenant needed written confirmation of the rent to seek financial support, so it must have been obvious to them that she might suffer financial loss if they refused.
I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlords’ breach caused the tenant a loss of at least $30.00 per week for the 66 weeks of the tenancy. The tenant is entitled to compensation accordingly.
Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with claims brought, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4561690 — Exemplary damages at 16D Tamumu Road, Waipawa, Waipawa 4210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4561690 — Exemplary damages at 16D Tamumu Road, Waipawa, Waipawa 4210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions