What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4626349 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 4626349?

Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Over Payment: $1,900.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4626349?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4626349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9428694-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4626349 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 4626349?

Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Over Payment: $1,900.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4626349?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4626349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9428694-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38 Redpath Road, Orepuki, RD 1, Riverton 9881 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4626349 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4626349 — net $1,970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
rent over payment	$1,900.00	rent over payment
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge the bond	$50.00	Failing to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,970.44

The landlord failed to make themselves available for the hearing.

The background to this matter is that the landlords reside in Australia and the tenants entered into a tenancy agreement on 20 January 2018.

The landlords did not have an agent in New Zealand that is a requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act (the Act). The tenant however does not make a claim for exemplary damages for this and therefore I am not making an award for this breach

In February 2023 the tenants received a phone call from the landlord stating that the rent was going to increase from $180.00 a week to $400.00. The evidence is that they were told that if that did not happen the house would be sold. The tenants felt obligated to pay the increase. However, in around June they received a text terminating the tenancy and were given four weeks, 28 days to vacate. This has not been raised as a breach or issue I have to deal with today.

The tenants then stopped paying the rent and moved out on 20 August 2023.

The tenant claims that the rent increase was unlawful and seeks to have a refund of payments made, less the time they continued in occupation and paid no further rent.

Section 24 of the Act provides the requirements when a landlord seeks to increase the rent. The notice is to be done in writing and the notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable and the day in which the increased rent shall become payable.

None of the requirements have been met. The threat was made that if the increase, $220 per week was not met the property would be sold. Notice was then given that the property would be sold, and subsequent threats made to the tenants. The tenants were clearly very upset at the threats and chose to be connected by phone for the hearing.

Based on the evidence before me the rent increase is unlawful and invalid and therefore the overpayments of the rent should be refunded.

Taking into consideration the increase of $400 per week that was paid from 22 February until 14 th June, (25 weeks and three days) and considering they moved out on 20 August, having not made a payment from 14 th June until 20 August 2023, they still made a total of $1900.00 over payment. This is ordered to be refunded.

[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. 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 has failed to comply with this obligation, and 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.

The tenant has not claimed that the failure to lodge has affected them in that they do not seek the refund of the bond. They have done so on the basis that they do not believe they would ever get it back. The vacated the premises in a hurry and left some belongings due to having to exit the property quickly as a result of threats that had been made to them from the landlord.

As a result, they have not suffered a loss and the landlord will have incurred clean up costs of some sort.

The award for the breach of the obligations is as a deterrent for future failures. As stated there have been other breaches here that have not been claimed. If a landlord is in the business of being a landlord, they must be aware of their obligations under the Act.

Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted name suppression as requested

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4626349 — net $1,970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
rent over payment	$1,900.00	rent over payment
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge the bond	$50.00	Failing to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,970.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the successful tenant applicants name and identifying details.
Corrina Soper must pay [The tenant/s] $1,970.44 immediately, as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord failed to make themselves available for the hearing.
The background to this matter is that the landlords reside in Australia and the tenants entered into a tenancy agreement on 20 January 2018.
The landlords did not have an agent in New Zealand that is a requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act (the Act). The tenant however does not make a claim for exemplary damages for this and therefore I am not making an award for this breach
In February 2023 the tenants received a phone call from the landlord stating that the rent was going to increase from $180.00 a week to $400.00. The evidence is that they were told that if that did not happen the house would be sold. The tenants felt obligated to pay the increase. However, in around June they received a text terminating the tenancy and were given four weeks, 28 days to vacate. This has not been raised as a breach or issue I have to deal with today.
The tenants then stopped paying the rent and moved out on 20 August 2023.
The tenant claims that the rent increase was unlawful and seeks to have a refund of payments made, less the time they continued in occupation and paid no further rent.
Section 24 of the Act provides the requirements when a landlord seeks to increase the rent. The notice is to be done in writing and the notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable and the day in which the increased rent shall become payable.
None of the requirements have been met. The threat was made that if the increase, $220 per week was not met the property would be sold. Notice was then given that the property would be sold, and subsequent threats made to the tenants. The tenants were clearly very upset at the threats and chose to be connected by phone for the hearing.
Based on the evidence before me the rent increase is unlawful and invalid and therefore the overpayments of the rent should be refunded.
Taking into consideration the increase of $400 per week that was paid from 22 February until 14 th June, (25 weeks and three days) and considering they moved out on 20 August, having not made a payment from 14 th June until 20 August 2023, they still made a total of $1900.00 over payment. This is ordered to be refunded.
[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. 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 has failed to comply with this obligation, and 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.
The tenant has not claimed that the failure to lodge has affected them in that they do not seek the refund of the bond. They have done so on the basis that they do not believe they would ever get it back. The vacated the premises in a hurry and left some belongings due to having to exit the property quickly as a result of threats that had been made to them from the landlord.
As a result, they have not suffered a loss and the landlord will have incurred clean up costs of some sort.
The award for the breach of the obligations is as a deterrent for future failures. As stated there have been other breaches here that have not been claimed. If a landlord is in the business of being a landlord, they must be aware of their obligations under the Act.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted name suppression as requested

Tenancy Tribunal case 4626349 — Exemplary damages at 38 Redpath Road, Orepuki, RD 1, Riverton 9881

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4626349 — Exemplary damages at 38 Redpath Road, Orepuki, RD 1, Riverton 9881

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