What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4573014 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4573014?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573014?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9199665-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4573014 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4573014?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573014?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9199665-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

219 Wolseley Street, Mayfair, Hastings, Hawkes Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4573014 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

219 Wolseley Street, Mayfair, Hastings, Hawkes Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4573014 — Exemplary damages | 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 4573014 — net $1,220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond	$200.00	Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages – failure to appoint an agent	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – failure to appoint an agent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,220.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,220.44

Claims and awards for application 4573014 — net $1,220.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond

Exemplary damages – failure to appoint an agent

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages – failure to appoint an agent

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,220.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,220.44

Dismissed claims

Discrimination — The fire alarm

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Ajosh Abraham Thomas to pay [The tenant/s] $1,220.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in the [Event location suppressed] on 12 July 2023.
There are two applications before the Tribunal. The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and the landlord not appointing an agent in New Zealand. The landlord’s application seeks compensation for the tenant’s failure to repair damage and to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord also claims the tenant discriminated against the landlord, opened the landlord’s mail, and removed a smoke alarm causing a health and safety risk. The landlord withdrew claims for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears as the tenancy has now ended and the rent was never actually in arrears.
The tenancy was for almost four years and the relationship between the tenant and landlord was largely amicable until the end of the tenancy. The overall situation has taken its toll on both parties. All could have been avoided if the landlord had complied with his basic landlord obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant’s claims:

Did the landlord move overseas without an agent?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) 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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord moved to India at the end of 2019 and then settled in Australia in early 2020. He had given his friend’s contact details to the tenant in the event that the tenant could not contact the landlord.
The landlord explained that he was not aware that he had an obligation to appoint an agent whilst he was overseas and stated that he could not afford to do so in any event. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, they have 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) RTA.
There was a clear breach of section 16A in this instance and the breach was intentional (in the sense that the landlord living in another country for more than 21-days was an intentional act). I do not consider the informal arrangement between the landlord and tenant should be considered an acceptable alternative to the requirements of s 16A of the RTA.
Modern means of quick and convenient communication have, to an extent, mitigated the problem that section 16A was designed to address, and there is no indication that the tenant had any significant problems getting in touch with the landlord during the tenancy.
Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $200.00

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

The landlord did not lodge the bond until the end of the tenancy, almost four years after the tenancy commenced.
The tenant claims that she repeatedly asked the landlord to lodge the bond with the bond centre. The tenant seeks exemplary damages.
The landlord stated that he spent the tenant’s bond money on something else when he was in Australia, and he could not afford to pay it back to the Bond Centre and that he was only able to lodge the money with the Bond Centre when he sold his car.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) 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 RTA.
The landlord breached his obligation and committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has intentionally not lodged the bond. He was aware of his obligation and did not lodge the bond because he had blatantly used the tenant’s bond as if it were his own money.
I had indicated during the hearing that the exemplary damages payable by the landlord in this case would be approximately half of the maximum, however, having reflected on the evidence, I consider exemplary damages on the higher end of the scale to be appropriate in this present case before me.
The tenant was concerned about the landlord keeping her money for issues that she was not liable for. The tenant should have had the security of her money being in the Bond Centre. The landlord has benefitted by spending money belonging to the tenants.
I have ordered exemplary damages of $1,000.00, discounted due to the fact that this is the landlord’s first breach of this nature. Any future breaches would likely warrant awarding the maximum. The landlord’s claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(c) RTA.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord specifically referred to the dishwasher not being cleaned properly and the area under the dishwasher and oven not being cleaned.
The landlord attended the final inspection via video conference with this friend and the tenant present at the premises. Accordingly, the landlord had the chance to inspect the premises and had agreed to refund the bond. The following day, the landlord attended the premises on his own and changed his mind about refunding the bond. The landlord claims to have carried out the cleaning himself and claims compensation for his time.
There are two reasons that the landlord’s claim cannot succeed: a. The need to clean inside and under the dishwasher and refrigerator was discovered after the tenancy ended and after the landlord had had the chance to inspect the premises and had agreed to refund the bond b. Cleaning under a dishwasher and refrigerator is beyond what a tenant might reasonably be expected to do. Some tenants would not know how to move a dishwasher out, or even be able to.
The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the kitchen cupboards were water damaged and the dishwasher was broken during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided quotations for the repair work.
For the following reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claims: a. The landlord had the chance to inspect the premises and had agreed to refund the bond. The issues with regard to the dishwasher and kitchen cupboards was identified by the landlord after the tenancy had ended. b. The landlord is now living in the premises and the cupboards have not been repaired. The work quoted has not been done. In a claim for damages for monetary loss, an applicant must prove that a monetary loss has actually been incurred in order for compensation to be awarded. c. The landlord provided a quotation for the repair work to the dishwasher, however, there is no evidence that the landlord incurred a cost. As above, no monetary loss has been proved.

Did the tenant discriminate against the landlord?

The landlord claims that the tenant has discriminated against him. The landlord claims that the tenant asked that the landlord and his friend speak English during the final inspection. The landlord claims that he should not have to speak English to his friend who was present at the inspection with the tenant.
The tenant claims that she politely asked the landlord to speak English during the final inspection so that she could understand what was being discussed.
Section 12 of the RTA provides that a landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Section 12 of the RTA exists to protect the rights of tenants in what are often unequal relationships. The clear intention of the Act is that discrimination must be on the part of the landlord or proposed landlord or an agent acting on the landlord’s or proposed landlord’s behalf.
In my view the landlord does not have the right under section 12 of the RTA to bring a claim that the tenant has discriminated against the landlord.
The claim for discrimination is dismissed The fire alarm
The landlord claimed that the tenant had taken a fire alarm off the wall and left it on the vanity at the end of the tenancy causing a fire safety risk.
The tenant submitted that the fire alarm had been taken down when the premises were professionally cleaned on the last day of the tenancy. The tenant’s evidence was that the fact the fire alarm was on the vanity was identified during the final inspection, it was confirmed that it was still working and then left on the vanity.
The landlord did not identify which part of the RTA or tenancy agreement that it was alleged that the tenant breached nor did the landlord identify what compensation (if any) that was sought for the alleged breach.
Tenants are obligated to replace missing smoke alarms when they vacate premises. There was no suggestion in this case by the landlord that a smoke alarm was missing, only that it was not on the wall on the final day of the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the smoke alarm was taken down by the tenant in order to clean the premises and that even if there was a breach of the RTA by the tenant in doing so, which I am not certain that there has been, the landlord has not suffered a loss and so no compensation is payable.
The claim is dismissed. The landlord’s mail
The landlord claims to have found a letter in the letterbox at the premises addressed to him that had been opened and then taped closed. The landlord acknowledged that he had no evidence that the tenant had opened the letter. The tenant submitted that she had no knowledge of the letter in question.
There is no evidence that the tenant opened the letter addressed to the landlord. That aside, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine breaches of this nature.
The claim is dismissed. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in their claim and name suppression for the tenant is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and his application for suppression is dismissed Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. T Lee-Lewis 19 July 2023

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 4573014 — net $1,220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond	$200.00	Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages – failure to appoint an agent	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – failure to appoint an agent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,220.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,220.44

Claims and awards for application 4573014 — net $1,220.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond

Exemplary damages – failure to appoint an agent

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages – failure to appoint an agent

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,220.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,220.44

Dismissed claims

Discrimination — The fire alarm

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Ajosh Abraham Thomas to pay [The tenant/s] $1,220.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in the [Event location suppressed] on 12 July 2023.
There are two applications before the Tribunal. The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and the landlord not appointing an agent in New Zealand. The landlord’s application seeks compensation for the tenant’s failure to repair damage and to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord also claims the tenant discriminated against the landlord, opened the landlord’s mail, and removed a smoke alarm causing a health and safety risk. The landlord withdrew claims for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears as the tenancy has now ended and the rent was never actually in arrears.
The tenancy was for almost four years and the relationship between the tenant and landlord was largely amicable until the end of the tenancy. The overall situation has taken its toll on both parties. All could have been avoided if the landlord had complied with his basic landlord obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant’s claims:

Did the landlord move overseas without an agent?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) 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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord moved to India at the end of 2019 and then settled in Australia in early 2020. He had given his friend’s contact details to the tenant in the event that the tenant could not contact the landlord.
The landlord explained that he was not aware that he had an obligation to appoint an agent whilst he was overseas and stated that he could not afford to do so in any event. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, they have 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) RTA.
There was a clear breach of section 16A in this instance and the breach was intentional (in the sense that the landlord living in another country for more than 21-days was an intentional act). I do not consider the informal arrangement between the landlord and tenant should be considered an acceptable alternative to the requirements of s 16A of the RTA.
Modern means of quick and convenient communication have, to an extent, mitigated the problem that section 16A was designed to address, and there is no indication that the tenant had any significant problems getting in touch with the landlord during the tenancy.
Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $200.00

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

The landlord did not lodge the bond until the end of the tenancy, almost four years after the tenancy commenced.
The tenant claims that she repeatedly asked the landlord to lodge the bond with the bond centre. The tenant seeks exemplary damages.
The landlord stated that he spent the tenant’s bond money on something else when he was in Australia, and he could not afford to pay it back to the Bond Centre and that he was only able to lodge the money with the Bond Centre when he sold his car.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) 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 RTA.
The landlord breached his obligation and committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has intentionally not lodged the bond. He was aware of his obligation and did not lodge the bond because he had blatantly used the tenant’s bond as if it were his own money.
I had indicated during the hearing that the exemplary damages payable by the landlord in this case would be approximately half of the maximum, however, having reflected on the evidence, I consider exemplary damages on the higher end of the scale to be appropriate in this present case before me.
The tenant was concerned about the landlord keeping her money for issues that she was not liable for. The tenant should have had the security of her money being in the Bond Centre. The landlord has benefitted by spending money belonging to the tenants.
I have ordered exemplary damages of $1,000.00, discounted due to the fact that this is the landlord’s first breach of this nature. Any future breaches would likely warrant awarding the maximum. The landlord’s claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(c) RTA.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord specifically referred to the dishwasher not being cleaned properly and the area under the dishwasher and oven not being cleaned.
The landlord attended the final inspection via video conference with this friend and the tenant present at the premises. Accordingly, the landlord had the chance to inspect the premises and had agreed to refund the bond. The following day, the landlord attended the premises on his own and changed his mind about refunding the bond. The landlord claims to have carried out the cleaning himself and claims compensation for his time.
There are two reasons that the landlord’s claim cannot succeed: a. The need to clean inside and under the dishwasher and refrigerator was discovered after the tenancy ended and after the landlord had had the chance to inspect the premises and had agreed to refund the bond b. Cleaning under a dishwasher and refrigerator is beyond what a tenant might reasonably be expected to do. Some tenants would not know how to move a dishwasher out, or even be able to.
The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the kitchen cupboards were water damaged and the dishwasher was broken during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided quotations for the repair work.
For the following reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claims: a. The landlord had the chance to inspect the premises and had agreed to refund the bond. The issues with regard to the dishwasher and kitchen cupboards was identified by the landlord after the tenancy had ended. b. The landlord is now living in the premises and the cupboards have not been repaired. The work quoted has not been done. In a claim for damages for monetary loss, an applicant must prove that a monetary loss has actually been incurred in order for compensation to be awarded. c. The landlord provided a quotation for the repair work to the dishwasher, however, there is no evidence that the landlord incurred a cost. As above, no monetary loss has been proved.

Did the tenant discriminate against the landlord?

The landlord claims that the tenant has discriminated against him. The landlord claims that the tenant asked that the landlord and his friend speak English during the final inspection. The landlord claims that he should not have to speak English to his friend who was present at the inspection with the tenant.
The tenant claims that she politely asked the landlord to speak English during the final inspection so that she could understand what was being discussed.
Section 12 of the RTA provides that a landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Section 12 of the RTA exists to protect the rights of tenants in what are often unequal relationships. The clear intention of the Act is that discrimination must be on the part of the landlord or proposed landlord or an agent acting on the landlord’s or proposed landlord’s behalf.
In my view the landlord does not have the right under section 12 of the RTA to bring a claim that the tenant has discriminated against the landlord.
The claim for discrimination is dismissed The fire alarm
The landlord claimed that the tenant had taken a fire alarm off the wall and left it on the vanity at the end of the tenancy causing a fire safety risk.
The tenant submitted that the fire alarm had been taken down when the premises were professionally cleaned on the last day of the tenancy. The tenant’s evidence was that the fact the fire alarm was on the vanity was identified during the final inspection, it was confirmed that it was still working and then left on the vanity.
The landlord did not identify which part of the RTA or tenancy agreement that it was alleged that the tenant breached nor did the landlord identify what compensation (if any) that was sought for the alleged breach.
Tenants are obligated to replace missing smoke alarms when they vacate premises. There was no suggestion in this case by the landlord that a smoke alarm was missing, only that it was not on the wall on the final day of the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the smoke alarm was taken down by the tenant in order to clean the premises and that even if there was a breach of the RTA by the tenant in doing so, which I am not certain that there has been, the landlord has not suffered a loss and so no compensation is payable.
The claim is dismissed. The landlord’s mail
The landlord claims to have found a letter in the letterbox at the premises addressed to him that had been opened and then taped closed. The landlord acknowledged that he had no evidence that the tenant had opened the letter. The tenant submitted that she had no knowledge of the letter in question.
There is no evidence that the tenant opened the letter addressed to the landlord. That aside, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine breaches of this nature.
The claim is dismissed. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in their claim and name suppression for the tenant is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and his application for suppression is dismissed Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. T Lee-Lewis 19 July 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573014 — Exemplary damages at 219 Wolseley Street, Mayfair, Hastings, Hawkes Bay,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573014 — Exemplary damages at 219 Wolseley Street, Mayfair, Hastings, Hawkes Bay,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord move overseas without an agent?

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant discriminate against the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord move overseas without an agent?

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant discriminate against the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions