What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594855 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 4594855?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Pre-Occupation Fee: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4594855?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9488851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594855 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 4594855?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Pre-Occupation Fee: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4594855?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9488851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4594855 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4594855 — net $570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Refund of pre-occupation fee	$50.00	Refund of pre-occupation fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$570.44
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$570.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Redex Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $570.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages $500.00 Refund of pre-occupation fee $50.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $570.44 Bond $2,120.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $570.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants’ claims
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for: a. Refund of the bond. b. Refund of a pre-occupation fee retained by the landlord. c. Exemplary damages for the landlord claiming and retaining the pre- occupation fee. The landlord’s claims
The landlord has claimed for: a. Rent outstanding at the end of the tenancy. b. Compensation for repairs to a curtain fixture and the garage. c. Painting. This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Burden of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. Pre-occupation fee
Before the start of the tenancy, the tenants were required to pay $50.00 as a “pre-occupation fee”. An accompanying explanation advised that the fee would be refunded if the tenants completed a pre-occupation form and returned it to the landlord within five working days of occupying the property.
The tenants who are refugees and recent immigrants to New Zealand who had never rented a property in this country. They explained that they did not understand this requirement and did not complete or return the pre-occupation form.
At the hearing, the landlord readily agreed to refund the fee.
The tenants claim that by requiring payment of this fee, the landlord required security other than a bond.
A landlord may not require a tenant to provide any form of security for the payment or performance arising out of the tenancy other than a bond or a guarantee. See section 18A(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 18A(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This tenancy started on 10 October 2019. Section 18A has been law since 1 October 2010.
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. Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The District Court in TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.” The landlord is therefore deemed to have known the law and so to have intended its unlawful act.
The object of exemplary damages is to punish deter. It is in the public interest that landlords be deterred from breaching provisions of the RTA, especially as here, where the tenants were particularly vulnerable and the landlord was represented by a professional property manager.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to award the tenants a sum of $500.00 in exemplary damages, being one third of the maximum sum available. Landlord’s claim for rent
The tenancy ended on 3 April 2023. The landlord’s rent statement showed that the tenants were liable for one further day’s rent after the two weeks’ payment on 22 March 2023.
The landlord’s rent statement that this was paid on 28 March 2023.
The landlord’s claim for further rent is not supported by its own statement and so its claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claim for compensation
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 landlord claimed for the replacement of a curtain fitting and the repair of cladding on the garage.
The tenants claimed that the curtain fitting was broken at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to produce evidence that it was not broken at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for compensation for this item is dismissed.
The tenants accepted that they backed their car into the garage and caused the cladding minor damage in August 2022. They properly advised the landlord of the accident and then had the garage repaired. The tenants advised that the property was subject to the landlord’s inspection twice during the remainder of the tenancy and the landlord did not raise any issue about the adequacy of the repair during those inspections.
I am not satisfied on the evidence before the Tribunal that the tenants’ repairs were not adequate. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4594855 — net $570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Refund of pre-occupation fee	$50.00	Refund of pre-occupation fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$570.44
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$570.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Redex Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $570.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages $500.00 Refund of pre-occupation fee $50.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $570.44 Bond $2,120.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $570.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants’ claims
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for: a. Refund of the bond. b. Refund of a pre-occupation fee retained by the landlord. c. Exemplary damages for the landlord claiming and retaining the pre- occupation fee. The landlord’s claims
The landlord has claimed for: a. Rent outstanding at the end of the tenancy. b. Compensation for repairs to a curtain fixture and the garage. c. Painting. This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Burden of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. Pre-occupation fee
Before the start of the tenancy, the tenants were required to pay $50.00 as a “pre-occupation fee”. An accompanying explanation advised that the fee would be refunded if the tenants completed a pre-occupation form and returned it to the landlord within five working days of occupying the property.
The tenants who are refugees and recent immigrants to New Zealand who had never rented a property in this country. They explained that they did not understand this requirement and did not complete or return the pre-occupation form.
At the hearing, the landlord readily agreed to refund the fee.
The tenants claim that by requiring payment of this fee, the landlord required security other than a bond.
A landlord may not require a tenant to provide any form of security for the payment or performance arising out of the tenancy other than a bond or a guarantee. See section 18A(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 18A(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This tenancy started on 10 October 2019. Section 18A has been law since 1 October 2010.
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. Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The District Court in TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.” The landlord is therefore deemed to have known the law and so to have intended its unlawful act.
The object of exemplary damages is to punish deter. It is in the public interest that landlords be deterred from breaching provisions of the RTA, especially as here, where the tenants were particularly vulnerable and the landlord was represented by a professional property manager.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to award the tenants a sum of $500.00 in exemplary damages, being one third of the maximum sum available. Landlord’s claim for rent
The tenancy ended on 3 April 2023. The landlord’s rent statement showed that the tenants were liable for one further day’s rent after the two weeks’ payment on 22 March 2023.
The landlord’s rent statement that this was paid on 28 March 2023.
The landlord’s claim for further rent is not supported by its own statement and so its claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claim for compensation
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 landlord claimed for the replacement of a curtain fitting and the repair of cladding on the garage.
The tenants claimed that the curtain fitting was broken at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to produce evidence that it was not broken at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for compensation for this item is dismissed.
The tenants accepted that they backed their car into the garage and caused the cladding minor damage in August 2022. They properly advised the landlord of the accident and then had the garage repaired. The tenants advised that the property was subject to the landlord’s inspection twice during the remainder of the tenancy and the landlord did not raise any issue about the adequacy of the repair during those inspections.
I am not satisfied on the evidence before the Tribunal that the tenants’ repairs were not adequate. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594855 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594855 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions