What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4678017 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4678017?

Compensation: Moving Costs: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Lost Wages: $686.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4678017?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4678017?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9455348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4678017 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4678017?

Compensation: Moving Costs: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Lost Wages: $686.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4678017?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4678017?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9455348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 58 Scannell Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4678017 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4678017 — net $2,156.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: moving costs	$450.00	moving costs
Lost wages	$686.00	Lost wages
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,156.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,156.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Hamish Murray must pay [The tenant/s] $2,156.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was convened by telephone at the landlord’s request. The landlord had filed a late response/cross application. As confirmed at the hearing if the landlord wishes to pursue those claims he will need to file an application and that will be dealt with in due course.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants, immediately if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The premises were on the market when the tenant enquired about renting them. The landlord told her the last open day was the following Sunday then confirmed to her, that a contract on the property had expired. She wanted to know if it was safe to give notice at the property, she had been renting for 7 years.
On 3 June the landlord messaged the tenant and confirmed to her that the contract had run out and “we will not be listing again”.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord signed a new listing agreement with Bayley’s. The tenant says he did not tell her he had signed this agreement and the property was to remain on the market. She also says that had he done so she would not have moved. She had been at her previous rental for 7 years and was only interested in this property because it was closer to her children’s school and a little bigger. She moved in therefore thinking it was safe to do so as the property was no longer on the market.
The tenancy agreement was signed on 19 June and the tenant started moving in on 23 June when she got the key. The written agreement does not mention that the property was on the market. The landlord said the tenant should have known as the “for sale” sign was up. The tenant says it was not and had it been she would have asked why.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence here. The text saying, “we will not be listing again”, in my view means exactly what it says. It was in direct response to the tenant’s question about this. She only gave notice because she was told that the offer had expired, and the landlord would not be listing again. The fact the tenancy agreement does not mention that the property was on the market also supports this view.
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.
While the landlord says his actions were not intentional, I find the wording of the text was clear and intention can be attributed to the landlord, given he was well aware of the importance of the issue to the tenant. The clear wording of his answer “we will not be listing again” confirms an element of intentionality.
The impact on the tenant has been considerable. She has had to move twice in a short space of time and is now paying considerably more rent. She also had to live through the real stress of not being able to find a rental in time, after being given notice the property had sold, and facing homelessness for herself and her four children.
On the other side of the ledger the landlord has acknowledged the seriousness of the situation the tenant found herself in, expressed remorse and tried to assist her find a new property.
Exemplary damages of $1,000 are in my view appropriate.
As well as exemplary damages, which are designed to punish errant landlord’s and send a clear message about the need to comply with the requirements in the RTA, compensatory damages are also appropriate as they flow directly from the landlord’s breach.
Compensation is awarded for moving costs ($300. Reconnection of gas services $150 and lost wages for 4 days due to moving). Those costs are considered reasonable.
I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond. By the time the bond was received the tenancy was about to end and the landlord genuinely thought the quickest way of returning the bond to the tenant was direct from his account, which he did without deduction immediately the tenancy ended. He did this despite considering there were genuine claims against the bond.
There is not the element of intentionality in terms of the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord is to pay the filing fee as the application is successful. The tenant’s name is not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4678017 — net $2,156.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: moving costs	$450.00	moving costs
Lost wages	$686.00	Lost wages
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,156.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,156.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Hamish Murray must pay [The tenant/s] $2,156.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was convened by telephone at the landlord’s request. The landlord had filed a late response/cross application. As confirmed at the hearing if the landlord wishes to pursue those claims he will need to file an application and that will be dealt with in due course.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants, immediately if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The premises were on the market when the tenant enquired about renting them. The landlord told her the last open day was the following Sunday then confirmed to her, that a contract on the property had expired. She wanted to know if it was safe to give notice at the property, she had been renting for 7 years.
On 3 June the landlord messaged the tenant and confirmed to her that the contract had run out and “we will not be listing again”.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord signed a new listing agreement with Bayley’s. The tenant says he did not tell her he had signed this agreement and the property was to remain on the market. She also says that had he done so she would not have moved. She had been at her previous rental for 7 years and was only interested in this property because it was closer to her children’s school and a little bigger. She moved in therefore thinking it was safe to do so as the property was no longer on the market.
The tenancy agreement was signed on 19 June and the tenant started moving in on 23 June when she got the key. The written agreement does not mention that the property was on the market. The landlord said the tenant should have known as the “for sale” sign was up. The tenant says it was not and had it been she would have asked why.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence here. The text saying, “we will not be listing again”, in my view means exactly what it says. It was in direct response to the tenant’s question about this. She only gave notice because she was told that the offer had expired, and the landlord would not be listing again. The fact the tenancy agreement does not mention that the property was on the market also supports this view.
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.
While the landlord says his actions were not intentional, I find the wording of the text was clear and intention can be attributed to the landlord, given he was well aware of the importance of the issue to the tenant. The clear wording of his answer “we will not be listing again” confirms an element of intentionality.
The impact on the tenant has been considerable. She has had to move twice in a short space of time and is now paying considerably more rent. She also had to live through the real stress of not being able to find a rental in time, after being given notice the property had sold, and facing homelessness for herself and her four children.
On the other side of the ledger the landlord has acknowledged the seriousness of the situation the tenant found herself in, expressed remorse and tried to assist her find a new property.
Exemplary damages of $1,000 are in my view appropriate.
As well as exemplary damages, which are designed to punish errant landlord’s and send a clear message about the need to comply with the requirements in the RTA, compensatory damages are also appropriate as they flow directly from the landlord’s breach.
Compensation is awarded for moving costs ($300. Reconnection of gas services $150 and lost wages for 4 days due to moving). Those costs are considered reasonable.
I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond. By the time the bond was received the tenancy was about to end and the landlord genuinely thought the quickest way of returning the bond to the tenant was direct from his account, which he did without deduction immediately the tenancy ended. He did this despite considering there were genuine claims against the bond.
There is not the element of intentionality in terms of the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord is to pay the filing fee as the application is successful. The tenant’s name is not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4678017 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 58 Scannell Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4678017 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 58 Scannell Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330

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