What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4667589 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the names and identifying details of both parties.

How much money was awarded in case 4667589?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4667589?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4667589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10180798-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4667589 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the names and identifying details of both parties.

How much money was awarded in case 4667589?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4667589?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4667589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10180798-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4667589 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4667589 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of enjoyment due to delayed lock/door repair	$500.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment due to delayed lock/door repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

The Tribunal suppresses the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Application 4667589 is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 April 2024. The landlord’s representative attend by phone.
The tenant has made 2 separate applications.
Application 4667589 concerns the tenant’s perception that the landlord required rent to be paid before the existing/previous rent period had expired.
Application 4755510 is an application for compensation arising from the delay in fixing a lock and door at the premises leading to the door being insecure and unlockable. Application 4667589
The tenant seeks a declaration under section 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That section provides in part: 23 Rent in advance (1) A landlord shall not require the payment of any rent— (a) more than 2 weeks in advance; or (b) before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already.
The rent situation became confused at the start of the tenancy due to the amount paid by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). This resulted in a rent credit, which was initially incorrectly notified to the tenant. It was later corrected, and the rent credit was refunded. The rent credit was greater than first notified.
Confusingly, the landlord’s rent ledger does not show rent in credit, only a $0.00 balance for the current rent period if the rent is in credit.
The landlord’s representative apologised to the tenant for the confusion he had experienced. She explained that the landlord had no control over the initial payment made by MSD and she acknowledged that the landlord’s computer system could result in confusion for a tenant.
Although the tenant submitted that the landlord had acted unlawfully by requiring further rent when the previous rent period had not yet ended, I do not make a finding of any unlawful conduct.
When different government departments are involved, with different computer systems, initial errors in calculations can occur. The tenant was not financially worse off by anything that occurred. His concern was the frustration and stress that resulted from what he perceived as a requirement that he pay rent when it was not yet due.
The rent situation has now resolved, and each party understands what happened and why.
The fact that the Tribunal can make orders does not always mean that it should.
This is not a situation that requires any sanction by the Tribunal. Yes, there were errors resulting in confusion. But what happened was not such as to justify an award of exemplary damages (I find there was no unlawful act by the landlord) or an award of compensation.
For these reasons I dismiss the application. Application 4755510
The tenant seeks a finding that the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 46 RTA. Section 46 provides: 46 Locks (1) The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. (2) Neither the landlord nor the tenant shall alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out. (3) Failure to comply with subsection (1), and contravention of subsection (2), without reasonable excuse, is each hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
The tenant gave evidence that for 45 days his back door would not close, and for 65 days it could not be locked.
The landlord’s representative explained that the premises were retrofitted, akin to a new build. She said the landlord was contractually obliged to deal with its contractor. She said the contractor let the landlord down. The contractor’s delays lead to the situation the tenant described.
The landlord’s representative apologised to the tenant. She acknowledged the inconvenience he experienced. She said the landlord wanted to try and settle the dispute outside of the Tribunal.
The tenant is vision impaired. He described how he was stressed and on occasion fearful due to the back door not closing and not able to be secured. He described an incident when a NZ Post contractor threw a package through the door, which alarmed him as he could not see what was happening. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
I do not find the criteria for exemplary damages met in this case. The landlord did not act with intent. At most it was negligent by not more quickly pursuing its contractor. That said, it was largely in its contractor’s hands due to contractual obligations.
The tenant was critical of the landlord’s actions and delay. He said he had been told that the repair could have been done very quickly. But that still does not establish an intentional act by the landlord, which is necessary for exemplary damages to be awarded.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
Unlike exemplary damages compensation is not punitive; it simply recognises and addresses loss.
The tenant’s compensation claim is for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and the stress and anxiety he suffered knowing the premises could not be secured for over two months.
In Birch (referred to above) the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
For the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and his stress and anxiety caused by being unable to secure his premises, I award him compensation of $500.00. The effects on him as a vision impaired person were greater than for a person with full vision and it is appropriate for the Tribunal to recognise that. Result
Application 4667589 is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
On Application 4755510 the landlord will pay the tenant $520.44, comprising compensation of $500.00 and the filing fee of $20.44. Name suppression
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The landlord is entitled to an order on Application 4667589 since its defence is successful.
The tenant is entitled to an order on Application 4755510 because he has been partly successful.
Suppression must therefore apply across both orders; an order for separate parties on each application would be pointless – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4667589 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of enjoyment due to delayed lock/door repair	$500.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment due to delayed lock/door repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

The Tribunal suppresses the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Application 4667589 is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 April 2024. The landlord’s representative attend by phone.
The tenant has made 2 separate applications.
Application 4667589 concerns the tenant’s perception that the landlord required rent to be paid before the existing/previous rent period had expired.
Application 4755510 is an application for compensation arising from the delay in fixing a lock and door at the premises leading to the door being insecure and unlockable. Application 4667589
The tenant seeks a declaration under section 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That section provides in part: 23 Rent in advance (1) A landlord shall not require the payment of any rent— (a) more than 2 weeks in advance; or (b) before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already.
The rent situation became confused at the start of the tenancy due to the amount paid by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). This resulted in a rent credit, which was initially incorrectly notified to the tenant. It was later corrected, and the rent credit was refunded. The rent credit was greater than first notified.
Confusingly, the landlord’s rent ledger does not show rent in credit, only a $0.00 balance for the current rent period if the rent is in credit.
The landlord’s representative apologised to the tenant for the confusion he had experienced. She explained that the landlord had no control over the initial payment made by MSD and she acknowledged that the landlord’s computer system could result in confusion for a tenant.
Although the tenant submitted that the landlord had acted unlawfully by requiring further rent when the previous rent period had not yet ended, I do not make a finding of any unlawful conduct.
When different government departments are involved, with different computer systems, initial errors in calculations can occur. The tenant was not financially worse off by anything that occurred. His concern was the frustration and stress that resulted from what he perceived as a requirement that he pay rent when it was not yet due.
The rent situation has now resolved, and each party understands what happened and why.
The fact that the Tribunal can make orders does not always mean that it should.
This is not a situation that requires any sanction by the Tribunal. Yes, there were errors resulting in confusion. But what happened was not such as to justify an award of exemplary damages (I find there was no unlawful act by the landlord) or an award of compensation.
For these reasons I dismiss the application. Application 4755510
The tenant seeks a finding that the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 46 RTA. Section 46 provides: 46 Locks (1) The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. (2) Neither the landlord nor the tenant shall alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out. (3) Failure to comply with subsection (1), and contravention of subsection (2), without reasonable excuse, is each hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
The tenant gave evidence that for 45 days his back door would not close, and for 65 days it could not be locked.
The landlord’s representative explained that the premises were retrofitted, akin to a new build. She said the landlord was contractually obliged to deal with its contractor. She said the contractor let the landlord down. The contractor’s delays lead to the situation the tenant described.
The landlord’s representative apologised to the tenant. She acknowledged the inconvenience he experienced. She said the landlord wanted to try and settle the dispute outside of the Tribunal.
The tenant is vision impaired. He described how he was stressed and on occasion fearful due to the back door not closing and not able to be secured. He described an incident when a NZ Post contractor threw a package through the door, which alarmed him as he could not see what was happening. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
I do not find the criteria for exemplary damages met in this case. The landlord did not act with intent. At most it was negligent by not more quickly pursuing its contractor. That said, it was largely in its contractor’s hands due to contractual obligations.
The tenant was critical of the landlord’s actions and delay. He said he had been told that the repair could have been done very quickly. But that still does not establish an intentional act by the landlord, which is necessary for exemplary damages to be awarded.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
Unlike exemplary damages compensation is not punitive; it simply recognises and addresses loss.
The tenant’s compensation claim is for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and the stress and anxiety he suffered knowing the premises could not be secured for over two months.
In Birch (referred to above) the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
For the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and his stress and anxiety caused by being unable to secure his premises, I award him compensation of $500.00. The effects on him as a vision impaired person were greater than for a person with full vision and it is appropriate for the Tribunal to recognise that. Result
Application 4667589 is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
On Application 4755510 the landlord will pay the tenant $520.44, comprising compensation of $500.00 and the filing fee of $20.44. Name suppression
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The landlord is entitled to an order on Application 4667589 since its defence is successful.
The tenant is entitled to an order on Application 4755510 because he has been partly successful.
Suppression must therefore apply across both orders; an order for separate parties on each application would be pointless – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4667589 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4667589 — Property damage

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