What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645076 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4645076?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645076?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9826147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645076 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4645076?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645076?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9826147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Watts Crescent, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4645076 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted. The order [2023] NZTT 4588169, 4645076 dated 13 October 2023 is now in force and must be complied with.

Reasons

Hao Han attended the hearing on 10 January 2024 and was assisted by an interpreter of the Mandarin language. Amy Zhang attended for Upartner Property Limited. [The tenant/s] also attended as tenants.
Hao Han has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order [2023] NZTT 4588169, 4645076 dated 13 October 2023.
Mr Han says that:- a. He does not agree with the order that he must pay exemplary damages of $1,000.00 to the tenants (the landlord failed to lodge the bond on time), b. He does not agree that the rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $800.00. Ms Zhang supplied an amended rent ledger that she says shows rent owing as $1,614.28. The landlord has provided new evidence of a red notebook that he says records all rent payments he received from the tenants. c. He does not agree with the previous decision to dismiss his claim for power (electricity) costs. He says the tenants still owe him money for this. He says he has found new evidence of two receipts that he wrote for cash payments that the tenants made to him and that this shows that this is the total they paid him. He also has new evidence of a text he sent to the tenants on 16/9/2021 which asks them to pay $1,120.00 for power.
The Tribunal will not always accept new evidence for a rehearing application. This is because everyone must bring their best evidence to the first hearing. There cannot usually be extra chances to bring more evidence because otherwise court hearings would go on for too long and the court system would become very delayed.
Hao Han said that he did not bring all his evidence to the first hearing because the red notebook was only found later and that he did not know that the tenants would say that they paid for power with cash payments.
I want to make the fairest decision, so I did look at the new evidence and talk about it with everyone.

Should a rehearing be granted?

I have carefully considered the landlord’s reasons for wanting a new hearing. I have not granted a rehearing. I record my reasons below. A.Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond in time
I do not grant a rehearing of this issue because the landlord’s reason is only that he disagrees with my decision. It is only by appeal to the District Court that this order can be reviewed and changed. B.The amount of rent owing
There was more discussion and comparison of the rent records at this hearing.
After considering the amended rent ledger given by Ms Zhang and the new red notebook, my decisions are:- a. The tenancy started on 16/12/2020. The landlord’s ledger incorrectly starts from 21/12/2020. b. On 31/5/2022, the landlord texted the tenant to say the rent was to increase. This was not a proper notice because it did not give 60 days’ notice and did not say the date that the rent increase was going to take effect. This is required by law. 1 c. The tenants did pay increased rent of $400.00 from 6/6/2022. d. The tenants gave bank statements in the first hearing that prove that they paid rent every week except:- 1/04/2021which they say they paid in cash 31/05/2023 and 7/06/2023 the last two weeks of the tenancy (the tenants did not pay the last two weeks of rent because they had not yet had confirmation that the landlord had lodged their bond) e. Ms Zhang’s amended rent ledger is incorrect. It does not record rent payments on 13/10/2021, 23/12/2021, 13/04/2022. These payments were proved by the tenants’ bank statements which they provided during the hearing on 11 August 2023. f. The tenants’ rent summary sheet (also emailed to the Tribunal during the hearing on 11 August 2023) is correct. 2 g. The red notebook does not give me any new information. The bank statements from the tenants are better evidence. h. I see no reason to change my earlier decision that I believe the tenants when they say that they paid cash for rent on 1/04/2021.
I do not grant a rehearing of the rent issue and I do not change my first decision. C.The power bills
The new evidence from the landlord is:- a. Two handwritten receipts for a payment of $700 cash on 16/9/2021 and $300 cash on 18/9/2021 that Hao Han says are the only cash payments he ever received from the tenants, and b. A page of text messages sent on 16/09/2021 from Hao Han to [The tenant/s] that say:- 3 155.19 4 230.00 5 197.41 6 521.86 7 366.53 9 962.16 add 2120.15 1 See section 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 [The tenant/s] emailed two documents to the Tribunal during the 11 August 2023 hearing: 1. A rent summary with red highlighted payments and 2. bank statements proving those payments. Also see previous order [2023] NZTT 4588169, 4645076 at paragraph 14b. 7 months 700.00 paid me
00 You pay me 1120.00 c. [The tenant/s] replies: I don’t understand I will come to your house tomorrow ,we will talk then
The tenants also brought new evidence about power costs. This was:- a. A text message between [The tenant/s] and the landlord sent on “6 Sept 2021” that says: “Hi harry 300 I paid for electricity and hot water.thank you.” b. Text messages on 7 Dec 2020 between the tenants and another person (“P”) who everyone agrees introduced them to Hao Han and sometimes translated for them. The tenants say that the text messages show that they were told that the weekly rent included power and internet as long as power bills were no more than $100.00 per month.
My decisions on the power bills issue are:- a. The text messages from Hao Han to [The tenant/s] on 16/09/2021 make several mistakes with the amounts that the landlord told the tenants they owed for power bills. For example, the text says that the power bill for month “9” is “$962.16”. This is wrong. The charges on the 3 September 2021 power bill are $267.43. This is a big mistake. Ms Zhang also made this same mistake at the first hearing by adding up the “total amount due” instead of the “current charges”. b. I do not accept that the landlord’s new handwritten receipts are reliable evidence that the tenants paid cash of only $1,000.00 over the tenancy. This is because:- i. Hao Han did not bring the notebook that he says he tore the receipts pages from. He said he left that notebook at home today. ii. Hao Han did bring the new red notebook. If he brought one new notebook, then I would expect him to bring all relevant notebooks. iii. The text message from [The tenant/s] on 6 September 2021 verifies the payment of $300.00 cash. This date does not match with the landlord’s handwritten receipt so adds to my reluctance to rely on the new handwritten receipts. iv. Hao Han’s text on 16/09/2021 says “You pay me 1120.00”. There are no other texts of Hao Han asking the tenants to pay more money for power bills. The tenants say that this is because they made more cash payments to the landlord after this date. If the landlord did not receive any more cash, then I would expect to see that he has texted or emailed the tenants to ask them to pay the bills. He has not done this. It is not until 9 months later, on 31 May 2022 and 3 June 2022, that the landlord texts and asks the tenants to pay for internet and electricity. The tenants reply to say they want to talk to him about it. The landlord and tenants then agree that the tenants will contract for these bills in their name.
I do not find the landlord’s new evidence to be reliable. I do not grant a rehearing of the power bills issue and I do not change my first decision. The order of 13 October 2023 is now in force
I have dismissed the landlord’s application for a rehearing.
This means that the stay of proceedings is lifted, and the order of 13 October 2023 is now in force.
The landlord must immediately pay the tenants $220.44 as previously ordered.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted. The order [2023] NZTT 4588169, 4645076 dated 13 October 2023 is now in force and must be complied with.

Reasons

Hao Han attended the hearing on 10 January 2024 and was assisted by an interpreter of the Mandarin language. Amy Zhang attended for Upartner Property Limited. [The tenant/s] also attended as tenants.
Hao Han has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order [2023] NZTT 4588169, 4645076 dated 13 October 2023.
Mr Han says that:- a. He does not agree with the order that he must pay exemplary damages of $1,000.00 to the tenants (the landlord failed to lodge the bond on time), b. He does not agree that the rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $800.00. Ms Zhang supplied an amended rent ledger that she says shows rent owing as $1,614.28. The landlord has provided new evidence of a red notebook that he says records all rent payments he received from the tenants. c. He does not agree with the previous decision to dismiss his claim for power (electricity) costs. He says the tenants still owe him money for this. He says he has found new evidence of two receipts that he wrote for cash payments that the tenants made to him and that this shows that this is the total they paid him. He also has new evidence of a text he sent to the tenants on 16/9/2021 which asks them to pay $1,120.00 for power.
The Tribunal will not always accept new evidence for a rehearing application. This is because everyone must bring their best evidence to the first hearing. There cannot usually be extra chances to bring more evidence because otherwise court hearings would go on for too long and the court system would become very delayed.
Hao Han said that he did not bring all his evidence to the first hearing because the red notebook was only found later and that he did not know that the tenants would say that they paid for power with cash payments.
I want to make the fairest decision, so I did look at the new evidence and talk about it with everyone.

Should a rehearing be granted?

I have carefully considered the landlord’s reasons for wanting a new hearing. I have not granted a rehearing. I record my reasons below. A.Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond in time
I do not grant a rehearing of this issue because the landlord’s reason is only that he disagrees with my decision. It is only by appeal to the District Court that this order can be reviewed and changed. B.The amount of rent owing
There was more discussion and comparison of the rent records at this hearing.
After considering the amended rent ledger given by Ms Zhang and the new red notebook, my decisions are:- a. The tenancy started on 16/12/2020. The landlord’s ledger incorrectly starts from 21/12/2020. b. On 31/5/2022, the landlord texted the tenant to say the rent was to increase. This was not a proper notice because it did not give 60 days’ notice and did not say the date that the rent increase was going to take effect. This is required by law. 1 c. The tenants did pay increased rent of $400.00 from 6/6/2022. d. The tenants gave bank statements in the first hearing that prove that they paid rent every week except:- 1/04/2021which they say they paid in cash 31/05/2023 and 7/06/2023 the last two weeks of the tenancy (the tenants did not pay the last two weeks of rent because they had not yet had confirmation that the landlord had lodged their bond) e. Ms Zhang’s amended rent ledger is incorrect. It does not record rent payments on 13/10/2021, 23/12/2021, 13/04/2022. These payments were proved by the tenants’ bank statements which they provided during the hearing on 11 August 2023. f. The tenants’ rent summary sheet (also emailed to the Tribunal during the hearing on 11 August 2023) is correct. 2 g. The red notebook does not give me any new information. The bank statements from the tenants are better evidence. h. I see no reason to change my earlier decision that I believe the tenants when they say that they paid cash for rent on 1/04/2021.
I do not grant a rehearing of the rent issue and I do not change my first decision. C.The power bills
The new evidence from the landlord is:- a. Two handwritten receipts for a payment of $700 cash on 16/9/2021 and $300 cash on 18/9/2021 that Hao Han says are the only cash payments he ever received from the tenants, and b. A page of text messages sent on 16/09/2021 from Hao Han to [The tenant/s] that say:- 3 155.19 4 230.00 5 197.41 6 521.86 7 366.53 9 962.16 add 2120.15 1 See section 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 [The tenant/s] emailed two documents to the Tribunal during the 11 August 2023 hearing: 1. A rent summary with red highlighted payments and 2. bank statements proving those payments. Also see previous order [2023] NZTT 4588169, 4645076 at paragraph 14b. 7 months 700.00 paid me
00 You pay me 1120.00 c. [The tenant/s] replies: I don’t understand I will come to your house tomorrow ,we will talk then
The tenants also brought new evidence about power costs. This was:- a. A text message between [The tenant/s] and the landlord sent on “6 Sept 2021” that says: “Hi harry 300 I paid for electricity and hot water.thank you.” b. Text messages on 7 Dec 2020 between the tenants and another person (“P”) who everyone agrees introduced them to Hao Han and sometimes translated for them. The tenants say that the text messages show that they were told that the weekly rent included power and internet as long as power bills were no more than $100.00 per month.
My decisions on the power bills issue are:- a. The text messages from Hao Han to [The tenant/s] on 16/09/2021 make several mistakes with the amounts that the landlord told the tenants they owed for power bills. For example, the text says that the power bill for month “9” is “$962.16”. This is wrong. The charges on the 3 September 2021 power bill are $267.43. This is a big mistake. Ms Zhang also made this same mistake at the first hearing by adding up the “total amount due” instead of the “current charges”. b. I do not accept that the landlord’s new handwritten receipts are reliable evidence that the tenants paid cash of only $1,000.00 over the tenancy. This is because:- i. Hao Han did not bring the notebook that he says he tore the receipts pages from. He said he left that notebook at home today. ii. Hao Han did bring the new red notebook. If he brought one new notebook, then I would expect him to bring all relevant notebooks. iii. The text message from [The tenant/s] on 6 September 2021 verifies the payment of $300.00 cash. This date does not match with the landlord’s handwritten receipt so adds to my reluctance to rely on the new handwritten receipts. iv. Hao Han’s text on 16/09/2021 says “You pay me 1120.00”. There are no other texts of Hao Han asking the tenants to pay more money for power bills. The tenants say that this is because they made more cash payments to the landlord after this date. If the landlord did not receive any more cash, then I would expect to see that he has texted or emailed the tenants to ask them to pay the bills. He has not done this. It is not until 9 months later, on 31 May 2022 and 3 June 2022, that the landlord texts and asks the tenants to pay for internet and electricity. The tenants reply to say they want to talk to him about it. The landlord and tenants then agree that the tenants will contract for these bills in their name.
I do not find the landlord’s new evidence to be reliable. I do not grant a rehearing of the power bills issue and I do not change my first decision. The order of 13 October 2023 is now in force
I have dismissed the landlord’s application for a rehearing.
This means that the stay of proceedings is lifted, and the order of 13 October 2023 is now in force.
The landlord must immediately pay the tenants $220.44 as previously ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645076 — Exemplary damages at 3 Watts Crescent, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645076 — Exemplary damages at 3 Watts Crescent, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions