What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4606373 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 4606373?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4606373?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4606373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9643183-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4606373 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 4606373?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4606373?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4606373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9643183-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4606373 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4606373 — net $2,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$400.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$2,100.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation	$20.44	Compensation
Net award	$2,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,520.44

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 application is dismissed.
The landlord’s termination notice dated 26 September 2023 is declared invalid and of no effect.
Du Il Kim must pay [The tenant/s] $2,520.44 by 28 November 2023, calculated as shown in the table below. To the extent that the landlord has not complied with this order, the tenants may deduct the unpaid amount from the rent payable.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 28 November 2023: a. Repair or replace the cooker in the premises so that the tenants have a fully functioning cook top and oven. b. Have the washing machine assessed by a qualified technician and repair or replace as necessary so that it operates fully and properly. c. Restore the hot water supply to the washing machine. d. Appoint an agent in New Zealand for the tenancy. e. Provide the tenants with a copy of each insurance policy that relates to damage to the premises.
If any of the work in Order 5 above has not been completed by 28 November 2023, the landlord must pay the tenants $100 for every week or part of a week that the work remains uncompleted. The tenants may deduct that sum from the rent.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend and was not represented.
This order follows the Tribunal’s order made on 27 September 2023. I refer to that order for the background to this case. That order dismissed the landlord’s claims for termination and compensation. This order now formally dismisses the landlord’s application.
The tenants remain in occupation of the premises as before. Ms Kim appears to have vacated the premises since the last hearing although some of her belongings remain in the bedroom that she occupied, and she comes back to the premises from time to time. She refuses to interact with the tenants, and she no longer performs any functions as the landlord’s agent or property manager.
A new tenant has moved into the premises and occupies one of the bedrooms. He objects to the tenants having any guests to the premises and claims that his agreement with the landlord entitles him to do so. Plainly, the tenants are entitled to have guests to the premises. Their tenancy agreement even provides for it. They are entitled to that as part of their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises in any case. If the landlord has promised the other tenant that there would be no guests at the premises, he should take that up with the landlord, not the tenants.
I can make no order in relation to the other tenant’s behaviour and the same applies to many of the tenants’ claims. They concern the tenants’ relationship with their co-tenants or co-occupiers (Ms Kim said she was not a tenant but a boarder and friend of the landlord). This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes between tenants.
I do not intend listing the claims that fall within that category, but they are all dismissed. The actions of Ms Kim are more difficult to categorise. She was a co-occupier and at times she acted as the landlord’s agent or property manager. The landlord has described her as the “head tenant”. Appliances
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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.
Where the Tribunal finds a party has failed to comply with any of their obligations under s45 of the Act the Tribunal may make a work order.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order.
The tenants described how some appliances in the premises do not work or do not work properly.
The drier in the laundry does not vent to the outside which causes a lot of condensation. That is more a problem for the landlord than the tenants. Driers are not required to vent to the outside.
The dishwasher has never worked during the tenancy, but the tenants were aware of that before they took the tenancy.
The inner glass panel of the oven shattered shortly after the tenancy started and it has not been repaired. The oven has obviously been unusable since then. It must be repaired, and the tenants are entitled to compensation for not having the use of it. They have bought an air fryer which gives them something to use in place of the oven. An award of $200 is appropriate.
The washing machine works erratically. Not all programmes work and some malfunction. As well, the landlord has disconnected the hot water supply to the machine. That must be restored, and the washing machine made to function correctly or replaced. The tenants are entitled to $200 compensation in this respect.
The smoke alarm outside two of the bedrooms (not the tenants’) does not work when tested. The tenants have replaced the battery. I have not made an order regarding that, but it should be replaced immediately. If the landlord doesn’t do it, the tenants should do so and deduct the cost from their rent. The Act allows them to do so. New Zealand Agent
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00
The landlord has not appointed an agent in New Zealand despite being out of the country since the start of 2020. Whether Ms Kim has been an agent for some of the tenancy is debatable. The fact that she is also an occupier makes that problematic. Whether she is acting as an agent or on her own account has been unclear. But there is no agent now and that needs to change.
The absence of an agent was problematic for the tenants. Obviously, the landlord had no personal knowledge of what was going on at the premises and Ms Kim was hardly impartial. The tenants felt that their side of things was not given fair consideration. They felt discriminated against. In my view, it has contributed to some of the issues that have marred the tenancy.
An award of exemplary damages is warranted. It is important for tenants and in the public interest that tenants have access to someone local to deal with issues as they arise. Given the effect that the breach has had on the tenants, an award in the mid-range is appropriate and I have awarded $600. Condition of Premises
The premises are relatively modern and comfortable but there have been some obvious failings by the landlord in terms of facilities. That said, I take the view that they can be addressed by an award of compensation and exemplary damages are not warranted. Bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord has not lodged the tenants’ bond. This is something I might have overlooked if the landlord had paid the bond to the Bond Centre after receiving the tenants’ application, but he has not done so. The bond is two weeks rent. An award of exemplary damages is required, and I have awarded $500. Insurance
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00.
The landlord has not provided any of the information that landlords are required to provide to tenants with the tenancy agreement. That includes confirmation of whether the premises are insured and if so what the amount of the excess is.
As well, the tenants have asked the landlord to provide a copy of his insurance policy and the landlord has not complied.
These are all breaches of the Act and unlawful acts. In the context of this case, some of the required information is less relevant but overall, there should be an award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s non-compliance. I have awarded $500. Termination Notice
The landlord has served an invalid termination notice. The minimum period of notice required on the ground that the landlord intends occupying the premises is 63 days and the landlord’s notice has given 42 days. I have therefore declared the notice invalid. If the landlord wants to terminate the tenancy on the ground that he intends to occupy the premises, he will have to serve a fresh 63- day notice.
A landlord serving a termination notice knowing they are not entitled to give the notice is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal can award up to $6,500 exemplary damages.
The landlord should have known that the notice was invalid and in serving it, he has committed an unlawful act. The landlord may well want to reoccupy the premises, but if he wants to terminate the tenancy on that ground, he must follow the Act. An award of exemplary damages is required. In all the circumstances it should be at the low end of the scale. I have awarded $500. Filing Fee
The tenants have had substantial success and so the landlord must pay the filing fee Suppression
For the same reason I have granted the tenants name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4606373 — net $2,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$400.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$2,100.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation	$20.44	Compensation
Net award	$2,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,520.44

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 application is dismissed.
The landlord’s termination notice dated 26 September 2023 is declared invalid and of no effect.
Du Il Kim must pay [The tenant/s] $2,520.44 by 28 November 2023, calculated as shown in the table below. To the extent that the landlord has not complied with this order, the tenants may deduct the unpaid amount from the rent payable.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 28 November 2023: a. Repair or replace the cooker in the premises so that the tenants have a fully functioning cook top and oven. b. Have the washing machine assessed by a qualified technician and repair or replace as necessary so that it operates fully and properly. c. Restore the hot water supply to the washing machine. d. Appoint an agent in New Zealand for the tenancy. e. Provide the tenants with a copy of each insurance policy that relates to damage to the premises.
If any of the work in Order 5 above has not been completed by 28 November 2023, the landlord must pay the tenants $100 for every week or part of a week that the work remains uncompleted. The tenants may deduct that sum from the rent.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend and was not represented.
This order follows the Tribunal’s order made on 27 September 2023. I refer to that order for the background to this case. That order dismissed the landlord’s claims for termination and compensation. This order now formally dismisses the landlord’s application.
The tenants remain in occupation of the premises as before. Ms Kim appears to have vacated the premises since the last hearing although some of her belongings remain in the bedroom that she occupied, and she comes back to the premises from time to time. She refuses to interact with the tenants, and she no longer performs any functions as the landlord’s agent or property manager.
A new tenant has moved into the premises and occupies one of the bedrooms. He objects to the tenants having any guests to the premises and claims that his agreement with the landlord entitles him to do so. Plainly, the tenants are entitled to have guests to the premises. Their tenancy agreement even provides for it. They are entitled to that as part of their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises in any case. If the landlord has promised the other tenant that there would be no guests at the premises, he should take that up with the landlord, not the tenants.
I can make no order in relation to the other tenant’s behaviour and the same applies to many of the tenants’ claims. They concern the tenants’ relationship with their co-tenants or co-occupiers (Ms Kim said she was not a tenant but a boarder and friend of the landlord). This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes between tenants.
I do not intend listing the claims that fall within that category, but they are all dismissed. The actions of Ms Kim are more difficult to categorise. She was a co-occupier and at times she acted as the landlord’s agent or property manager. The landlord has described her as the “head tenant”. Appliances
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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.
Where the Tribunal finds a party has failed to comply with any of their obligations under s45 of the Act the Tribunal may make a work order.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order.
The tenants described how some appliances in the premises do not work or do not work properly.
The drier in the laundry does not vent to the outside which causes a lot of condensation. That is more a problem for the landlord than the tenants. Driers are not required to vent to the outside.
The dishwasher has never worked during the tenancy, but the tenants were aware of that before they took the tenancy.
The inner glass panel of the oven shattered shortly after the tenancy started and it has not been repaired. The oven has obviously been unusable since then. It must be repaired, and the tenants are entitled to compensation for not having the use of it. They have bought an air fryer which gives them something to use in place of the oven. An award of $200 is appropriate.
The washing machine works erratically. Not all programmes work and some malfunction. As well, the landlord has disconnected the hot water supply to the machine. That must be restored, and the washing machine made to function correctly or replaced. The tenants are entitled to $200 compensation in this respect.
The smoke alarm outside two of the bedrooms (not the tenants’) does not work when tested. The tenants have replaced the battery. I have not made an order regarding that, but it should be replaced immediately. If the landlord doesn’t do it, the tenants should do so and deduct the cost from their rent. The Act allows them to do so. New Zealand Agent
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00
The landlord has not appointed an agent in New Zealand despite being out of the country since the start of 2020. Whether Ms Kim has been an agent for some of the tenancy is debatable. The fact that she is also an occupier makes that problematic. Whether she is acting as an agent or on her own account has been unclear. But there is no agent now and that needs to change.
The absence of an agent was problematic for the tenants. Obviously, the landlord had no personal knowledge of what was going on at the premises and Ms Kim was hardly impartial. The tenants felt that their side of things was not given fair consideration. They felt discriminated against. In my view, it has contributed to some of the issues that have marred the tenancy.
An award of exemplary damages is warranted. It is important for tenants and in the public interest that tenants have access to someone local to deal with issues as they arise. Given the effect that the breach has had on the tenants, an award in the mid-range is appropriate and I have awarded $600. Condition of Premises
The premises are relatively modern and comfortable but there have been some obvious failings by the landlord in terms of facilities. That said, I take the view that they can be addressed by an award of compensation and exemplary damages are not warranted. Bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord has not lodged the tenants’ bond. This is something I might have overlooked if the landlord had paid the bond to the Bond Centre after receiving the tenants’ application, but he has not done so. The bond is two weeks rent. An award of exemplary damages is required, and I have awarded $500. Insurance
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00.
The landlord has not provided any of the information that landlords are required to provide to tenants with the tenancy agreement. That includes confirmation of whether the premises are insured and if so what the amount of the excess is.
As well, the tenants have asked the landlord to provide a copy of his insurance policy and the landlord has not complied.
These are all breaches of the Act and unlawful acts. In the context of this case, some of the required information is less relevant but overall, there should be an award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s non-compliance. I have awarded $500. Termination Notice
The landlord has served an invalid termination notice. The minimum period of notice required on the ground that the landlord intends occupying the premises is 63 days and the landlord’s notice has given 42 days. I have therefore declared the notice invalid. If the landlord wants to terminate the tenancy on the ground that he intends to occupy the premises, he will have to serve a fresh 63- day notice.
A landlord serving a termination notice knowing they are not entitled to give the notice is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal can award up to $6,500 exemplary damages.
The landlord should have known that the notice was invalid and in serving it, he has committed an unlawful act. The landlord may well want to reoccupy the premises, but if he wants to terminate the tenancy on that ground, he must follow the Act. An award of exemplary damages is required. In all the circumstances it should be at the low end of the scale. I have awarded $500. Filing Fee
The tenants have had substantial success and so the landlord must pay the filing fee Suppression
For the same reason I have granted the tenants name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4606373 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4606373 — Exemplary damages

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