What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4632974 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 4632974?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632974?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632974?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9760920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4632974 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 4632974?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632974?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632974?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9760920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4632974 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632974 — net $320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$200.00		Carpet cleaning
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$500.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$200.00	$520.44
Net award		$320.44
Bond		$3,640.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$320.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $320.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative].
This tenancy began on 23 April 2022 and ended on 11 July 2023. The rent is $910.00 per week and a bond of $3,640.00 was paid. The applications
The tenants have applied for a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenants state in their application that the landlord was trying to claim for additional costs relating to damage to curtains, marks on the carpet, and informing them that the house had tested positive for methamphetamine contamination, without providing proof. The tenants also seek exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord has filed a cross application, seeking rent arrears, water charges, compensation for damage to curtains, carpet, walls and landscaping, replacement of a garage remote, and compensation for the landlord’s inability to access the property. There was also an application for a disposal of goods order. At the hearing, the landlord amended the application and sought rent arrears and compensation for the curtains and carpet cleaning. The other claims were withdrawn.
The parties reached agreement at the hearing on the rent arrears, and the tenants have agreed to pay the arrears amount for the three missed payments in full, to the landlord, by the following day. The tenants’ application: 4632974 The bond
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond of $3,640.00. This amount was paid to the landlord and was held in the landlord’s account until after the tenancy had ended. The bond was only lodged at the Bond Centre on or around 20 July 2023.
The tenants’ evidence is that when they made inquiries with Tenancy Services, they were informed there was no bond lodged for their tenancy. When they asked the landlord, and sought proof of the lodgement of the bond, the landlord advised them that it had been lodged, but under the incorrect address. Later, they received a letter from Tenancy Services dated 20 July 2023 confirming that the bond had been lodged. The tenants have provided copies of their email correspondence with the landlord.
In response, the landlord has explained that a student intern working for her at the time had attempted to lodge the bond under the incorrect address. This was complicated by there being two landlord identification numbers. She accepted responsibility for the fact that the bond was not lodged within the required timeframe.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) of the RTA. 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 of the RTA.
The landlord accepts that she has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre as required. In failing to lodge the bond, 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) of the RTA.
While I note the reasons for non-lodgement of the bond, it is in the public interest that landlords lodge the tenant’s bond as required by law. The bond is the tenant’s money. The lodging of the bond with a third party ensures that the landlord cannot unilaterally deduct money at the end of the tenancy, without the consent of the tenant, or without a Tribunal order.
Therefore, having considered the evidence, the submissions of both parties, and the factors in s109(3)(a) to (d), I find that an award of exemplary damages ought to be made. In determining the quantum, I note that the landlord’s representative is a professional property manager who ought to have known of the obligations concerning the bond. However, I also take into account the landlord’s acknowledgment of the breach, and her evidence that she will take steps to ensure this does not happen again. She also says this is the first time this has occurred. Given the particular circumstances in this case, and, in the context of this tenancy, I consider an award of $500.00 to be appropriate. Methamphetamine testing
The tenants state that the landlord informed them on 14 July 2023 (after they vacated), via email, that the premises had tested positive for methamphetamine and that they would have to cover the cost of decontamination. They were certain they had not brought or used methamphetamine in the premises and asked the landlord to provide proof. The landlord then changed her mind and said they would not need to pay for decontamination. They were concerned for their health if they had been living in a property that was contaminated.
In response, the landlord has explained that the owner of the premises did the testing himself, which came back positive. The landlord was unable to produce a copy of this test result. The testing was a pre-condition to the sale of the premises. However, an independent test through [testing company] was then arranged, the results of which have been produced. In the [testing company] report of 20 July 2023, the conclusion was that methamphetamine was not present in any sample.
Therefore, the evidence produced by the landlord shows that methamphetamine was not present in the premises. It appears that the initial testing may have produced an incorrect result. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not arrange for professional testing at the outset. However, as the results of independent testing show no health issues arising from the premises, no further findings need to be made concerning this claim. The landlord’s application: 4634949
As noted above, the landlord’s application listed a number of claims. Many of these are no longer sought, including rent arrears (the parties reached agreement on this), water, remotes, keys, landscaping repairs and a disposal of goods order.
The landlord still sought compensation for damage to curtains and the carpet. Curtains
The landlord states that the curtains were damaged, most likely because of the tenants’ cats, noting there were microtears in the fabric from the cats’ claws. The curtains were new when the tenants moved in, the owner had lived in the premises a few months before the tenants moved in. The landlord considers the curtains to be less than a year old at the start of the tenancy. The curtains have since been replaced. A quotation for replacement of the curtains has been provided. The landlord has clarified that the damage was to the sheer curtains in the dining room and lounge, and not the bedroom.
After considering the tenants’ evidence at the hearing, and noting the quote provided (obtained from the owner) was for replacement of multiple drapes, and not just the sheer fabric curtains claimed to be damaged, the landlord has since withdrawn this claim. Carpet
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the carpet. To be successful with the claim, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
From the photographic and oral evidence produced at the hearing, I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet was caused during the tenancy, and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants accept that the carpet stain was most likely caused by a pot plant, and state that before they left, they arranged for professional carpet cleaning.
While the tenants have taken steps to remedy the damage, it is reasonable for the landlord to have taken additional measures to remove the stains. In this case, the landlord has provided an invoice totalling $200.00 for the carpet cleaning and stain removal. This amount is awarded above. Filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632974 — net $320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$200.00		Carpet cleaning
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$500.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$200.00	$520.44
Net award		$320.44
Bond		$3,640.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$320.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $320.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative].
This tenancy began on 23 April 2022 and ended on 11 July 2023. The rent is $910.00 per week and a bond of $3,640.00 was paid. The applications
The tenants have applied for a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenants state in their application that the landlord was trying to claim for additional costs relating to damage to curtains, marks on the carpet, and informing them that the house had tested positive for methamphetamine contamination, without providing proof. The tenants also seek exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord has filed a cross application, seeking rent arrears, water charges, compensation for damage to curtains, carpet, walls and landscaping, replacement of a garage remote, and compensation for the landlord’s inability to access the property. There was also an application for a disposal of goods order. At the hearing, the landlord amended the application and sought rent arrears and compensation for the curtains and carpet cleaning. The other claims were withdrawn.
The parties reached agreement at the hearing on the rent arrears, and the tenants have agreed to pay the arrears amount for the three missed payments in full, to the landlord, by the following day. The tenants’ application: 4632974 The bond
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond of $3,640.00. This amount was paid to the landlord and was held in the landlord’s account until after the tenancy had ended. The bond was only lodged at the Bond Centre on or around 20 July 2023.
The tenants’ evidence is that when they made inquiries with Tenancy Services, they were informed there was no bond lodged for their tenancy. When they asked the landlord, and sought proof of the lodgement of the bond, the landlord advised them that it had been lodged, but under the incorrect address. Later, they received a letter from Tenancy Services dated 20 July 2023 confirming that the bond had been lodged. The tenants have provided copies of their email correspondence with the landlord.
In response, the landlord has explained that a student intern working for her at the time had attempted to lodge the bond under the incorrect address. This was complicated by there being two landlord identification numbers. She accepted responsibility for the fact that the bond was not lodged within the required timeframe.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) of the RTA. 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 of the RTA.
The landlord accepts that she has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre as required. In failing to lodge the bond, 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) of the RTA.
While I note the reasons for non-lodgement of the bond, it is in the public interest that landlords lodge the tenant’s bond as required by law. The bond is the tenant’s money. The lodging of the bond with a third party ensures that the landlord cannot unilaterally deduct money at the end of the tenancy, without the consent of the tenant, or without a Tribunal order.
Therefore, having considered the evidence, the submissions of both parties, and the factors in s109(3)(a) to (d), I find that an award of exemplary damages ought to be made. In determining the quantum, I note that the landlord’s representative is a professional property manager who ought to have known of the obligations concerning the bond. However, I also take into account the landlord’s acknowledgment of the breach, and her evidence that she will take steps to ensure this does not happen again. She also says this is the first time this has occurred. Given the particular circumstances in this case, and, in the context of this tenancy, I consider an award of $500.00 to be appropriate. Methamphetamine testing
The tenants state that the landlord informed them on 14 July 2023 (after they vacated), via email, that the premises had tested positive for methamphetamine and that they would have to cover the cost of decontamination. They were certain they had not brought or used methamphetamine in the premises and asked the landlord to provide proof. The landlord then changed her mind and said they would not need to pay for decontamination. They were concerned for their health if they had been living in a property that was contaminated.
In response, the landlord has explained that the owner of the premises did the testing himself, which came back positive. The landlord was unable to produce a copy of this test result. The testing was a pre-condition to the sale of the premises. However, an independent test through [testing company] was then arranged, the results of which have been produced. In the [testing company] report of 20 July 2023, the conclusion was that methamphetamine was not present in any sample.
Therefore, the evidence produced by the landlord shows that methamphetamine was not present in the premises. It appears that the initial testing may have produced an incorrect result. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not arrange for professional testing at the outset. However, as the results of independent testing show no health issues arising from the premises, no further findings need to be made concerning this claim. The landlord’s application: 4634949
As noted above, the landlord’s application listed a number of claims. Many of these are no longer sought, including rent arrears (the parties reached agreement on this), water, remotes, keys, landscaping repairs and a disposal of goods order.
The landlord still sought compensation for damage to curtains and the carpet. Curtains
The landlord states that the curtains were damaged, most likely because of the tenants’ cats, noting there were microtears in the fabric from the cats’ claws. The curtains were new when the tenants moved in, the owner had lived in the premises a few months before the tenants moved in. The landlord considers the curtains to be less than a year old at the start of the tenancy. The curtains have since been replaced. A quotation for replacement of the curtains has been provided. The landlord has clarified that the damage was to the sheer curtains in the dining room and lounge, and not the bedroom.
After considering the tenants’ evidence at the hearing, and noting the quote provided (obtained from the owner) was for replacement of multiple drapes, and not just the sheer fabric curtains claimed to be damaged, the landlord has since withdrawn this claim. Carpet
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the carpet. To be successful with the claim, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
From the photographic and oral evidence produced at the hearing, I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet was caused during the tenancy, and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants accept that the carpet stain was most likely caused by a pot plant, and state that before they left, they arranged for professional carpet cleaning.
While the tenants have taken steps to remedy the damage, it is reasonable for the landlord to have taken additional measures to remove the stains. In this case, the landlord has provided an invoice totalling $200.00 for the carpet cleaning and stain removal. This amount is awarded above. Filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632974 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632974 — 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