What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613271 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 4613271?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $100.00 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 4613271?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9339952-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613271 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 4613271?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $100.00 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 4613271?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9339952-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

33 Viewmont Drive, Harbour View, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4613271 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4613271 — net $1,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry	$1,000.00	unlawful entry
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment on 19 Feb	$100.00	breach of quiet enjoyment on 19 Feb
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment by late night texts	$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment by late night texts
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,620.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Horokaka Trading Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,620.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. “Horokaka Limited” is recorded on the tenancy agreement as the landlord. However, the Companies Office register records the entity as Horokaka Trading Limited. The company was represented by its directors Jenny (Zheng Rong) Wang and Paul (Guo Ping) Yan.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the landlord had on 21 May 2023 brought prospective tenants and entered the premises without giving the required notice.
The landlord maintains that she never brought along any prospective tenants to the premises on that date.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the landlord ignored the tenant’s refusal of entry and brought along 2 sets of prospective tenants just before 11am on 21 May 2023.
The text messages between the landlord and tenant at the material times support the tenant’s evidence.
On the morning of Sunday 21 May, the landlord texted: “Morning Abby, two people said they are interested in the property and come to view it 11:00am”.
The tenant responded: “Unfortunately the house is not in a space where we would feel comfortable having strangers through it...we have not agreed to let people come view the house this weekend”.
The landlord then pushed aside the tenant’s refusal and responded as follows: “We will manage them look around outside and have a quick view, not touch anything”.
The tenant then reiterated that they don’t feel comfortable having people view the property without any notice.
The text messages and the tenant’s evidence point to the landlord ignoring the express wishes of the tenant and brought unwanted people through just before 11am and entered the premises to view the property regardless.
I find the landlord has 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.
Having regard to those factors, and because this was not the first time that the landlord had ignored the tenant’s refusal for entry, I consider $1,000.00 an appropriate sum as exemplary damages under section 48 (4)(a) RTA for the landlord’s infringement on 21 May 2023.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
While a plumber was scheduled to undertake repairs at the premises on the morning of 19 February 2023, the tenant says the landlord unexpectedly came around herself without notice “to translate for the plumber” and then argued with them to try and persuade them to let her in. The landlord made a public scene outside the property walking up and down and complaining and throwing her hands in the air. This not only impacted the tenant’s peace and quiet during the event but made them feel uneasy due to the landlord making such a public scene in front of their neighbours.
However, having viewed and listened to the tenant’s video recording of the scene in question, the landlord was merely scolding their own plumber who missed the appointment altogether. The landlord was upset that the plumber had not arrived and did not come to do the repairs that had been pre-arranged.
While I consider that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment on the 19 February to have been impacted, I do not consider that the landlord had harassed the tenants on that day. I consider that an award of general damages of $100.00 to be an appropriate measure of compensation in favour of the tenant for the landlord having made a very public scene.
The landlord also sent a number of late night texts to the tenant demanding immediate answers scheduling of plumber’s attendance at the premises.
The text messages show a pattern of behaviour from the landlord which is unacceptable. For instance, when the landlord texted at 10.19pm on 18 February 2023 “how about Sunday morning or Monday afternoon?” and did not get a response after 10 minutes, the landlord impatiently demanded a response with “?? I need response to plumber” at 10.29pm.
I consider the landlord has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment.
Having regard to the landlord having committed the unlawful act under section 38(3) RTA intentionally, the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the tenant in having peace and quiet in the evenings, and the public interest, I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages of $500.00 against the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4613271 — net $1,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry	$1,000.00	unlawful entry
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment on 19 Feb	$100.00	breach of quiet enjoyment on 19 Feb
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment by late night texts	$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment by late night texts
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,620.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Horokaka Trading Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,620.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. “Horokaka Limited” is recorded on the tenancy agreement as the landlord. However, the Companies Office register records the entity as Horokaka Trading Limited. The company was represented by its directors Jenny (Zheng Rong) Wang and Paul (Guo Ping) Yan.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the landlord had on 21 May 2023 brought prospective tenants and entered the premises without giving the required notice.
The landlord maintains that she never brought along any prospective tenants to the premises on that date.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the landlord ignored the tenant’s refusal of entry and brought along 2 sets of prospective tenants just before 11am on 21 May 2023.
The text messages between the landlord and tenant at the material times support the tenant’s evidence.
On the morning of Sunday 21 May, the landlord texted: “Morning Abby, two people said they are interested in the property and come to view it 11:00am”.
The tenant responded: “Unfortunately the house is not in a space where we would feel comfortable having strangers through it...we have not agreed to let people come view the house this weekend”.
The landlord then pushed aside the tenant’s refusal and responded as follows: “We will manage them look around outside and have a quick view, not touch anything”.
The tenant then reiterated that they don’t feel comfortable having people view the property without any notice.
The text messages and the tenant’s evidence point to the landlord ignoring the express wishes of the tenant and brought unwanted people through just before 11am and entered the premises to view the property regardless.
I find the landlord has 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.
Having regard to those factors, and because this was not the first time that the landlord had ignored the tenant’s refusal for entry, I consider $1,000.00 an appropriate sum as exemplary damages under section 48 (4)(a) RTA for the landlord’s infringement on 21 May 2023.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
While a plumber was scheduled to undertake repairs at the premises on the morning of 19 February 2023, the tenant says the landlord unexpectedly came around herself without notice “to translate for the plumber” and then argued with them to try and persuade them to let her in. The landlord made a public scene outside the property walking up and down and complaining and throwing her hands in the air. This not only impacted the tenant’s peace and quiet during the event but made them feel uneasy due to the landlord making such a public scene in front of their neighbours.
However, having viewed and listened to the tenant’s video recording of the scene in question, the landlord was merely scolding their own plumber who missed the appointment altogether. The landlord was upset that the plumber had not arrived and did not come to do the repairs that had been pre-arranged.
While I consider that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment on the 19 February to have been impacted, I do not consider that the landlord had harassed the tenants on that day. I consider that an award of general damages of $100.00 to be an appropriate measure of compensation in favour of the tenant for the landlord having made a very public scene.
The landlord also sent a number of late night texts to the tenant demanding immediate answers scheduling of plumber’s attendance at the premises.
The text messages show a pattern of behaviour from the landlord which is unacceptable. For instance, when the landlord texted at 10.19pm on 18 February 2023 “how about Sunday morning or Monday afternoon?” and did not get a response after 10 minutes, the landlord impatiently demanded a response with “?? I need response to plumber” at 10.29pm.
I consider the landlord has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment.
Having regard to the landlord having committed the unlawful act under section 38(3) RTA intentionally, the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the tenant in having peace and quiet in the evenings, and the public interest, I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages of $500.00 against the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613271 — Exemplary damages at 33 Viewmont Drive, Harbour View, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613271 — Exemplary damages at 33 Viewmont Drive, Harbour View, Lower Hutt 5010

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