What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4581611?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (3488344-015) to Shannon

How much money was awarded in case 4581611?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Wifi Costs (Agreed: $130.50 awarded to tenant; Dining Table, Leg Chip Only: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: couch, less dep…: $550.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4581611?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4581611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9232819-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4581611?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (3488344-015) to Shannon

How much money was awarded in case 4581611?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Wifi Costs (Agreed: $130.50 awarded to tenant; Dining Table, Leg Chip Only: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: couch, less dep…: $550.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4581611?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4581611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9232819-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1125 Cameron Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4581611 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4581611. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: dining table, leg chip only	$50.00		Repairs: dining table, leg chip only
Rubbish removal	$30.00		Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: couch, less depreciation	$550.50		Replace furnishings: couch, less depreciation
including costs to dispose stain damaged couch	$120.00		including costs to dispose stain damaged couch
Exemplary damages: late lodgment of bond		$250.00	late lodgment of bond
Exemplary damages: requiring more than 4 weeks		$250.00	requiring more than 4 weeks
rent for bond		$120.00	rent for bond
Reimbursement of Wifi costs (agreed		$130.50	Reimbursement of Wifi costs (agreed
Total award	$750.50	$750.50

Both parties attended the hearing.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations in respect of bond?

The tenant claims the landlord requested a bond of more than four weeks rent.

A landlord must not require a bond of greater than four weeks rent. See section 18(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 18(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord required the bond of $3,600.00 based on four weeks of the initial rent of $900.00. When the rent was later reduced to $800.00 per week, as set out in the tenancy agreement, the bond remained at $3,600.00 instead of $3,200.00 (based on 4 week’s rent of $800.00). I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The landlord has also not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

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.

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.

The landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days after receipt of the bond on 11 April 2023. The bond was only lodged on 30 May 2023, two weeks’ late. I find 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 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 (‘RTA’).

Considering the landlord’s response that she had dropped the rent to suit the tenant’s requirements and the fact that she had mistakenly thought that she was not required to lodged the bond but lodged the full bond after the end of the tenancy, I consider exemplary damages on the lower end of the scale appropriate.

I award exemplary damages to the tenant of $250.00 for each of the landlord’s breach of section 18 and 19 RTA. Did the landlord comply with their obligations at the commencement of and during the tenancy?

On the remaining claims by the tenant, I am satisfied that the premises and lawns were not presented to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I award the tenant reasonable reimbursement of lawnmowing costs and cleaning costs undertaken by tenant at commencement of tenancy totalling $120.00.

The landlord also agreed to reimburse WIFI costs for 6 weeks as it should have been included with the tenancy.

I now consider the landlord’s claim for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

Only the amounts ordered are proved. I have considered the tenant’s obligation to bring the premises back to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy standard only, as opposed to a professional standard.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: stained couch and chip on the dining table leg. I consider the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Conclusion

Both parties are successful on a portion of their claims as set out above; the nett result is that no monies are payable to each other.

The bond, being the tenant’s monies, should now be refunded to the tenant forthwith.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4581611. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: dining table, leg chip only	$50.00		Repairs: dining table, leg chip only
Rubbish removal	$30.00		Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: couch, less depreciation	$550.50		Replace furnishings: couch, less depreciation
including costs to dispose stain damaged couch	$120.00		including costs to dispose stain damaged couch
Exemplary damages: late lodgment of bond		$250.00	late lodgment of bond
Exemplary damages: requiring more than 4 weeks		$250.00	requiring more than 4 weeks
rent for bond		$120.00	rent for bond
Reimbursement of Wifi costs (agreed		$130.50	Reimbursement of Wifi costs (agreed
Total award	$750.50	$750.50

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (3488344-015) to Shannon Faith Maire Mckendrick immediately, calculated based on the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations in respect of bond?

The tenant claims the landlord requested a bond of more than four weeks rent.
A landlord must not require a bond of greater than four weeks rent. See section 18(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 18(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord required the bond of $3,600.00 based on four weeks of the initial rent of $900.00. When the rent was later reduced to $800.00 per week, as set out in the tenancy agreement, the bond remained at $3,600.00 instead of $3,200.00 (based on 4 week’s rent of $800.00). I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord has also not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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.
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.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days after receipt of the bond on 11 April 2023. The bond was only lodged on 30 May 2023, two weeks’ late. I find 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 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 (‘RTA’).
Considering the landlord’s response that she had dropped the rent to suit the tenant’s requirements and the fact that she had mistakenly thought that she was not required to lodged the bond but lodged the full bond after the end of the tenancy, I consider exemplary damages on the lower end of the scale appropriate.
I award exemplary damages to the tenant of $250.00 for each of the landlord’s breach of section 18 and 19 RTA. Did the landlord comply with their obligations at the commencement of and during the tenancy?
On the remaining claims by the tenant, I am satisfied that the premises and lawns were not presented to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I award the tenant reasonable reimbursement of lawnmowing costs and cleaning costs undertaken by tenant at commencement of tenancy totalling $120.00.
The landlord also agreed to reimburse WIFI costs for 6 weeks as it should have been included with the tenancy.
I now consider the landlord’s claim for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Only the amounts ordered are proved. I have considered the tenant’s obligation to bring the premises back to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy standard only, as opposed to a professional standard.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: stained couch and chip on the dining table leg. I consider the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Conclusion
Both parties are successful on a portion of their claims as set out above; the nett result is that no monies are payable to each other.
The bond, being the tenant’s monies, should now be refunded to the tenant forthwith.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4581611 — Exemplary damages at 1125 Cameron Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4581611 — Exemplary damages at 1125 Cameron Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations in respect of bond?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations in respect of bond?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions