What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689509 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,263.88 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4689509?

Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Windows: $1,499.12 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $774.76 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $760.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689509?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10073311-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689509 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,263.88 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4689509?

Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Windows: $1,499.12 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $774.76 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $760.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689509?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10073311-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4689509 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4689509 — net $1,263.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (consent	$774.76		Water rates (consent
Repairs: broken windows	$1,499.12		Repairs: broken windows
Compensation for damage to lawn	$1,150.00		Compensation for damage to lawn
Refund fixed water rates charges (consent		$760.00	Refund fixed water rates charges (consent
Total award	$3,423.88	$760.00
Net award	$1,263.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,263.88

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,263.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The application for the repair of the laundry ceiling is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing; [The landlord’s representatives] represented the trustees of [The landlord/s].
The tenants have applied for reimbursement of overpaid fixed water rates charges. They also sought exemplary damages for the landlord failing to lodge the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the repair of damage and for the remaining bond which the trustees hold in a separate trust account. The tenants’ application.
The tenants accept they owe water rates of $774.76 up to 23 September 2023 when they vacated the tenancy.
The landlord accepts that the tenants were not liable for fixed water rates charges of $760.00.
I have made consent orders to reflect the parties’ acceptance of their respective claims concerning water rates.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. [The landlord’s representative] said she received advice from Tenancy Services that so long as the bond was kept in a separate trust account, that was sufficient.
That advice, if given, (it may have been misunderstood) was wrong. A bond, which belongs to the tenant in law, must be lodged at the Bond Centre within 23-working days of receipt.
The failure to lodge a bond is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $1,500.00.
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 v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
This is not a case where the landlord simply took no action. [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence was that she enquired about the bond and received advice that the Trust could keep it in a separate bank account which is what happened.
That advice was wrong or possibly the advice was different but misunderstood.
I do not find that the landlord acted with intent in this case. At most, the landlord’s action was negligent. That is not sufficient for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages. That part of the tenants’ application is dismissed. The landlord’s application
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has sought compensation for the repair of windowpanes, the repair of the lawn, damaged where a swimming pool was placed and by a rabbit hutch, and damage to the laundry ceiling.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for repairs to the windows. I have allowed that claim by consent.
The tenants accepted that the lawn was damaged. The landlord sought compensation of $2,300.00 for this damage.
The invoice the landlord produced in evidence does not detail the lawn work separate from other work carried out.
I have assessed the photos of the damage to the lawn. I award the landlord compensation of $1,150.00 one half of the amount claimed.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for damage to the laundry ceiling.
The tenants explained, and I accept, that the ceiling was damaged due to leaking above the ceiling causing it to bow. When they pushed it to inspect the damage caused by the leaking, the ceiling lining broke.
Regardless of any action by the tenants, the ceiling would have required repair due to the leaking that occurred.
I do not find the tenants liable for the repair cost of this damage ($875.00). I dismiss this claim. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $1,263.88 which comprises the landlord’s successful claims, less the reimbursed fixed water rates charges and the bond which the landlord may now keep.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fees. Each party has been partly successful. An award to one party would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. As each party has been partly successful, I grant the applications for name suppression – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4689509 — net $1,263.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (consent	$774.76		Water rates (consent
Repairs: broken windows	$1,499.12		Repairs: broken windows
Compensation for damage to lawn	$1,150.00		Compensation for damage to lawn
Refund fixed water rates charges (consent		$760.00	Refund fixed water rates charges (consent
Total award	$3,423.88	$760.00
Net award	$1,263.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,263.88

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,263.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The application for the repair of the laundry ceiling is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing; [The landlord’s representatives] represented the trustees of [The landlord/s].
The tenants have applied for reimbursement of overpaid fixed water rates charges. They also sought exemplary damages for the landlord failing to lodge the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the repair of damage and for the remaining bond which the trustees hold in a separate trust account. The tenants’ application.
The tenants accept they owe water rates of $774.76 up to 23 September 2023 when they vacated the tenancy.
The landlord accepts that the tenants were not liable for fixed water rates charges of $760.00.
I have made consent orders to reflect the parties’ acceptance of their respective claims concerning water rates.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. [The landlord’s representative] said she received advice from Tenancy Services that so long as the bond was kept in a separate trust account, that was sufficient.
That advice, if given, (it may have been misunderstood) was wrong. A bond, which belongs to the tenant in law, must be lodged at the Bond Centre within 23-working days of receipt.
The failure to lodge a bond is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $1,500.00.
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 v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
This is not a case where the landlord simply took no action. [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence was that she enquired about the bond and received advice that the Trust could keep it in a separate bank account which is what happened.
That advice was wrong or possibly the advice was different but misunderstood.
I do not find that the landlord acted with intent in this case. At most, the landlord’s action was negligent. That is not sufficient for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages. That part of the tenants’ application is dismissed. The landlord’s application
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has sought compensation for the repair of windowpanes, the repair of the lawn, damaged where a swimming pool was placed and by a rabbit hutch, and damage to the laundry ceiling.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for repairs to the windows. I have allowed that claim by consent.
The tenants accepted that the lawn was damaged. The landlord sought compensation of $2,300.00 for this damage.
The invoice the landlord produced in evidence does not detail the lawn work separate from other work carried out.
I have assessed the photos of the damage to the lawn. I award the landlord compensation of $1,150.00 one half of the amount claimed.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for damage to the laundry ceiling.
The tenants explained, and I accept, that the ceiling was damaged due to leaking above the ceiling causing it to bow. When they pushed it to inspect the damage caused by the leaking, the ceiling lining broke.
Regardless of any action by the tenants, the ceiling would have required repair due to the leaking that occurred.
I do not find the tenants liable for the repair cost of this damage ($875.00). I dismiss this claim. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $1,263.88 which comprises the landlord’s successful claims, less the reimbursed fixed water rates charges and the bond which the landlord may now keep.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fees. Each party has been partly successful. An award to one party would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. As each party has been partly successful, I grant the applications for name suppression – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689509 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689509 — 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