What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4700788 about?

The tribunal order states: Victoria Residences Management Limited Sanji Shahi must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4700788?

Compensation: Electricity: $292.47 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,480.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700788?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10049423-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4700788 about?

The tribunal order states: Victoria Residences Management Limited Sanji Shahi must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4700788?

Compensation: Electricity: $292.47 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,480.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700788?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10049423-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2201A, 17 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700788 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700788 — net $2,292.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Electricity	$292.47	Electricity
Exemplary damages: Bond	$1,480.00	Bond
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,292.91
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,292.91

Only the tenant attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation for electricity, and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond. Refund of Bond

The tenant seeks reimbursement of the bond paid at the commencement of the tenancy.

The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Failure to Lodge the Bond

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord has provided no explanation for the failure to lodge the bond. 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.

I consider that the failure to lodge the bond must have been an intentional act. The landlord is a property management company, and I consider they should be aware of their obligations under the Act.

The effect of that the breach is that the tenants’ have not had benefitted from the security of having the bond held in trust for them. A bond remains the tenant’s property for the duration of the tenancy, so the tenant is entitled to have that interest protected. On this occasion it remained in the landlord’s possession, and they had the use of it.

I further consider that there is a public interest in ensuring that tenant’s money is protected through use of the Bond Centre for the duration of tenancies. A failure to lodge the bond is a serious breach because it undermines the legislative arrangement for the management of residential tenancies.

Accordingly, I think an award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure on this occasion is appropriate, and I award $500.00. Electricity

Section 39 of the Act provides that tenants are responsible for outgoings exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises. In this case, the electricity account was in the tenant’s name. I have seen power invoices for several months between August 2022 and February 2023, indicating that power use by the tenants was in the vicinity of $25 per month.

The disputed account is for the month of August 2022, where the invoice was $292.47, based on an actual reading of the meter.

The tenant’s position is that the landlord should reimburse that month’s invoice because there was a fire alarm activation, including sprinklers, which resulted in significant water damage to the apartment. The tenant vacated the apartment for 2 months while it was repaired. Part of the remediation including the use of dehumidifiers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week while the apartment was dried out.

I accept that the water leak was not the fault of the tenant, and they should not be liable for the costs of remedying it, including the cost of the electricity.

Accordingly, I consider this portion of the tenant’s claim is proved.

The tenant also sought the disconnection and reconnection fees for the power, caused by the disputed invoice not being paid. The tenant sought reimbursement of this on the basis that the landlord was liable for the invoice.

I do not accept that this is appropriate. While an applicant is entitled to compensation for loss, there remains a duty to mitigate that loss. In this case, the duty to mitigate loss would include paying the invoice in a timely manner, then seeking reimbursement from the landlord, rather than allowing the account to be disconnected.

This portion of the claim is dismissed. Filing Fee

Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700788 — net $2,292.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Electricity	$292.47	Electricity
Exemplary damages: Bond	$1,480.00	Bond
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,292.91
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,292.91

Order

Victoria Residences Management Limited Sanji Shahi must pay [The tenant/s] $2,292.91 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation: Electricity$292.47 Exemplary damages: Bond$1,480.00 Exemplary damages$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,292.91

Reasons

Only the tenant attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation for electricity, and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond. Refund of Bond
The tenant seeks reimbursement of the bond paid at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Failure to Lodge the Bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has provided no explanation for the failure to lodge the bond. 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.
I consider that the failure to lodge the bond must have been an intentional act. The landlord is a property management company, and I consider they should be aware of their obligations under the Act.
The effect of that the breach is that the tenants’ have not had benefitted from the security of having the bond held in trust for them. A bond remains the tenant’s property for the duration of the tenancy, so the tenant is entitled to have that interest protected. On this occasion it remained in the landlord’s possession, and they had the use of it.
I further consider that there is a public interest in ensuring that tenant’s money is protected through use of the Bond Centre for the duration of tenancies. A failure to lodge the bond is a serious breach because it undermines the legislative arrangement for the management of residential tenancies.
Accordingly, I think an award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure on this occasion is appropriate, and I award $500.00. Electricity
Section 39 of the Act provides that tenants are responsible for outgoings exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises. In this case, the electricity account was in the tenant’s name. I have seen power invoices for several months between August 2022 and February 2023, indicating that power use by the tenants was in the vicinity of $25 per month.
The disputed account is for the month of August 2022, where the invoice was $292.47, based on an actual reading of the meter.
The tenant’s position is that the landlord should reimburse that month’s invoice because there was a fire alarm activation, including sprinklers, which resulted in significant water damage to the apartment. The tenant vacated the apartment for 2 months while it was repaired. Part of the remediation including the use of dehumidifiers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week while the apartment was dried out.
I accept that the water leak was not the fault of the tenant, and they should not be liable for the costs of remedying it, including the cost of the electricity.
Accordingly, I consider this portion of the tenant’s claim is proved.
The tenant also sought the disconnection and reconnection fees for the power, caused by the disputed invoice not being paid. The tenant sought reimbursement of this on the basis that the landlord was liable for the invoice.
I do not accept that this is appropriate. While an applicant is entitled to compensation for loss, there remains a duty to mitigate that loss. In this case, the duty to mitigate loss would include paying the invoice in a timely manner, then seeking reimbursement from the landlord, rather than allowing the account to be disconnected.
This portion of the claim is dismissed. Filing Fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700788 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2201A, 17 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700788 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2201A, 17 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

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