What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4699911 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for refund of the bond is adjourned.

How much money was awarded in case 4699911?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699911?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9892480-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4699911 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for refund of the bond is adjourned.

How much money was awarded in case 4699911?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699911?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9892480-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4699911 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4699911 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: total sum for unlawful acts	$1,000.00	total sum for unlawful acts
Compensation for stress and hardship due to the landlord purporting to end the tenancy early	$2,000.00	Compensation for stress and hardship due to the landlord purporting to end the tenancy early
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4699911 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: total sum for unlawful acts	$1,000.00	total sum for unlawful acts
Compensation for stress and hardship due to the landlord purporting to end the tenancy early	$2,000.00	Compensation for stress and hardship due to the landlord purporting to end the tenancy early
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

The tenant’s application for refund of the bond is adjourned.
Scott Butler must pay [The tenant/s] $3,020.44 immediately as detailed in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Butler attended with Mrs Butler who had also engaged with the tenant as a landlord of the property.
Ms Kelly attended as a witness for [the tenant] and was given leave to remain to support him after she had given her evidence. Bond
The tenancy agreement shows that a bond of $1000 was paid and the parties confirmed this during the hearing.
The tenant claims that the bond of $1000.00 should be repaid to him.
The landlord provided evidence to show that the tenant had made a final rent payment on 7 September 2022 (after receipt of a text message on 4 September 2022 purporting to end the tenancy in 30 days, discussed further below). The Landlord saw this non-payment of rent as a form of acceptance of the termination date and supposed that Mr Lynn intended his bond to be used to cover this unpaid rent. The rent unpaid was three weeks at $250.00 per week.
The tenant accepted that he had not paid the final three weeks rent but said that the rent was in credit by this amount.
I acknowledge that the landlord may have a claim against the bond, but no counterclaim application has been made by the landlord as required under section 22(2) of the Act.
The landlord has until 12 February 2024 to apply to the tribunal to make a counterclaim for the bond and if the landlord fails to do so, the tenant may advise the registry and I will make an order that the bond be awarded to the tenant.
The tenant claims exemplary damages for a number of specified unlawful acts. I will refer to the unlawful acts individually but deal with the exemplary damages claim in an holistic manner at paragraph [65] below for those unlawful acts that I find have been committed by the landlord and which may attract liability for exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy agreement, although incomplete, shows that the tenancy began on 5 October 2015.
The landlord managed the property himself and did so, by his own admission, in a fairly “hands-off” manner.
The claims contained in this application come about as a consequence of a termination notice purported to be given on 4 September 2022 by text message from Mrs Butler to the tenant. This notice advised that the property had been sold and the tenant had 30 days to vacate the premises.
The tenant replied that 30 days was insufficient and requested “the full 90 days”. There was no evidence of further communication put before me until the landlord arrived unannounced at the premises on 3 October 2022 and said he would be back with the new owners the next day.
On 4 October 2022 events came to an unpleasant head.
There was a text messages from Mrs Butler to the tenant which said “the new owners have said whatever is still on the property by 4.30 becomes theirs”. The tenant replied to this, once again requesting the appropriate 90 days’ notice and referring to this as “the legal timeframe required”.
The landlord and other supporters later came to the property and the tenant was still in situ. An altercation occurred the details of which are not completely clear but, both parties agreed that it was a very unpleasant situation which resulted in a broken window and telephone calls to the police.
The situation was made more unacceptable given that the tenant’s then 10- year-old child was present.
The tenant removed himself and his child from the premises and sought help from a friend who acted as a witness in the hearing corroborating the tenant’s evidence in relation to events immediately subsequent.
Ms Kelly confirmed the tenant’s evidence that she had picked him and his son up and taken them back to the property where they had discovered that keys and electricity fuses were missing.
The tenant gathered some personal belongings and went to stay at his mother’s home temporarily.
It was clear to me that the tenant had suffered great stress due to this situation and the fact that his son had witnessed and been part of these events.
Some time later, the new owners of the property agreed to give the tenant a further 62 days to vacate the premises as they had a family member who wanted to move in.
The tenant gave evidence that he found somewhere else to live and vacated before the expiry of that notice period.
At first glance, the events above seem inexplicable. However, the landlord provided some further information as to the background to these events. This information does not, by any means, excuse the behaviour described above but it does provide some explanation from the landlord’s perspective.
The landlord provided a long chain of correspondence between the tenant and the Hurunui District Council between May 2019 and March 2022 relating to complaints of rubbish build up, vermin and potential health issues.
The Council clearly worked with the tenant in a positive way, in response to complaints from neighbours, to encourage him to tidy up the property.
The landlord provided photographs from 4 October 2022, to illustrate the condition of the property. It is clear from the photos that there was a lot of building and other material around the outside of the property.
The tenants gave evidence that they were surprised and pleased when they received an offer for the property (which was not on the open market) as they were, by that point, finding the situation at the property difficult to cope with.
The landlord and his wife were clearly upset and stressed by the situation at the property and acknowledged that they had contributed by not acting on the situation earlier. They reinforced that they were hands-off and preferred to let the tenant get on with his life in his own way until this became a problem for them in terms of council complaints and possible enforcement action and related costs.
As stated earlier, the landlord accepted that they had made a mistake with the notice period but claimed to have received incorrect information from another person in regard to the appropriate notice period. They acknowledged that the tenant had referred to the correct lawful period in his text but they had not made any further inquiries to confirm the legal requirements.
In any case, the landlord did not attempt to excuse the events on 4 October 2022 which are the primary subject of this order. Mr Butler denied entering the building on that date but acknowledges that one of his party likely had and that a window was broken as a consequence of some kind of altercation. Exemplary damages claims
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 47 of the Act.
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 under section 47(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord purported to give 30 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 4 September 2022. This application was filed on 3 October 2023, so this act occurred outside the time frame under s 109, with the application being more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act so it cannot give rise to a claim for exemplary damages.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by removing fuses from the fuse box on 4 October 2022.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out under section 45(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00 under section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord denied responsibility for the removal of the fuses and suggested it was the new owner. The tenant confirmed that the new owner put the fuses back in place but denied that they accepted that they had removed them in the first place.
I find there is insufficient information before me to determine whether the landlord was responsible for the removal of the fuses. I am unable to find he has committed an unlawful act in this regard.
The tenant claims the landlord has removed keys from the property without consent.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks and other similar devices to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks or similar devices without the other party's consent under section 46(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 46(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord explained that they had handed the keys in question to the new owner and had not intended to modify security or deprive the tenant of access by doing so. I find this a reasonable excuse and find that they have not committed an unlawful act in this regard.
The tenant has not specifically claimed under section 60AA, but the circumstances of the events as described by the tenant give rise to the possibility of such a claim, so I am addressing it for completeness.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
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 $6500.00 under section 60AA and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord purported to give the notice by text message on 4 September 2022. The application was filed on 3 October 2023 so, under section 109(2)(b) more than 12 months has passed since the commission of the unlawful act. I find that any claim that the landlord has committed an unlawful act that gives rise to the possibility of exemplary damages in this regard is out of time.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance under section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the.
The landlord entered the premises on 4 October 2022 with insufficient notice given. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under section 38(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 under section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (see MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).
The landlord’s behaviour on 4 October 2022 amounts, in my view, to harassment of the tenant who should have been entitled to the correct 90 days’ notice under the act.
Events show, that if the tenant had been given the appropriate notice, he would have been able to find a new property and move out within that timeframe without the stress and pressure of the events of 4 October 2022. Neither the tenant nor his child should have suffered this experience.
I find they 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 under section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the unlawful acts of unlawful entry and harassment in relation to events on 4 October 2022 were intentional. The landlord had been advised by the tenant that the notice period under the purported termination notice was not lawful but continued with the attempted termination and eviction in any case as the property was changing hands on that date.
There is no excuse for the actions of the landlord and their supporters on that day and the intent was simply to get the tenant out of the property so that possession could be given to the new owner.
The effects on the tenant and his son were clearly profoundly negative and it is the tenant’s interests that the landlord is punished for the unlawful acts. It is also in the public interest that landlords are deterred form behaving in this way.
I award a total of $1000.00 exemplary damages for the unlawful acts committed by the landlord on 4 October 2022.
I have reduced the amount of exemplary damages to reflect the fact that, although not an excuse for the behaviour, I accept that the situation at the property caused the landlord distress and stress also. This was a very difficult time for all involved.
The tenant also asked that the landlord not be punished too severely for these events.
The Tribunal may also 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. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy.
To reflect the stress and hardship caused to the tenant and the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy I the last weeks, I also award compensation in the amount of $2000.00.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699911 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699911 — Exemplary damages

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