What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4708432 about?

The tribunal order states: Nid Renters Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4708432?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4708432?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4708432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10153159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4708432 about?

The tribunal order states: Nid Renters Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4708432?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4708432?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4708432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10153159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 807, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4708432 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4708432 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

Nid Renters Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages$2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under s 60AA.
Under s 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. See s 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy relates to an apartment in the “Metropolis” apartments. There is a body corporate associated with the apartments and the body corporate rules are incorporated into the tenancy agreement in accordance with s 16B of the RTA.
The body corporate alleges that the tenant breaches the body corporate rules by consuming illegal drugs at the premises. The evidence of this appears to consist of reports from body corporate employees smelling cannabis and the use of the drug dog, who “indicated” in the vicinity of the tenant’s apartment. There was not direct evidence of this presented to the Tribunal.
The landlord undertook methamphetamine testing, which returned a negative result.
The body corporate was not satisfied with that, and appears to have put pressure on the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
On 28 April 2023, the landlord sent the tenant an email seeking to terminate the tenancy on 28 days’ notice, and indicating that an application to the Tribunal would be made for commercial cleaning and the costs of the methamphetamine testing.
The tenant resisted that attempt. However, having been repeatedly accused of drug use, and had efforts to terminate the tenancy made, he felt insecure and sought alternative accommodation. The tenancy terminated on 5 June 2023.
The landlord sought compensation for the costs of commercial cleaning, the methamphetamine testing and water rates. The applications for cleaning and methamphetamine testing were dismissed by the Tribunal on the basis that the apartment was reasonably clean and tidy, and the methamphetamine testing yielded a negative result. The adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence to find the tenant had used the premises for unlawful activity.
I agree with that conclusion entirely.
The tenant now seeks compensation for the attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
The landlord submits that they were caught in a difficult position because the body corporate did not accept the results of the methamphetamine testing.
While I have some sympathy for the landlord, who was caught between the body corporate and the tenant, the fact remains that landlords have obligations under the RTA to their tenants, and tenancies can only be terminated in accordance with the RTA.
A landlord can only terminate a tenancy on notice if the provisions of section 51 if the RTA apply.
Terminating the tenancy for breach of the body corporate rules would require the landlord to follow the correct process, culminating in an application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy. The tenant would be heard during the consideration of that application.
The landlord did not follow either s51 or the process for termination of the tenancy for a breach of the rules. The attempt to terminate the tenancy was unlawful and 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 landlord must have acted intentionally. The landlord is a property manager, and is expected to have knowledge of the provisions of the RTA. Such a blatant breach cannot be seen as inadvertent.
The effect on the tenant was the undermining of his tenancy, and the security of his housing, together with the stresses of repeated allegations of unlawful conduct.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in compliance with the RTA, particularly as it relates to the termination of tenancies and the impact of that on housing security.
Accordingly, I consider that this is an appropriate case for exemplary damages, and I award $2,000.00.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4708432 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

Nid Renters Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages$2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under s 60AA.
Under s 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. See s 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy relates to an apartment in the “Metropolis” apartments. There is a body corporate associated with the apartments and the body corporate rules are incorporated into the tenancy agreement in accordance with s 16B of the RTA.
The body corporate alleges that the tenant breaches the body corporate rules by consuming illegal drugs at the premises. The evidence of this appears to consist of reports from body corporate employees smelling cannabis and the use of the drug dog, who “indicated” in the vicinity of the tenant’s apartment. There was not direct evidence of this presented to the Tribunal.
The landlord undertook methamphetamine testing, which returned a negative result.
The body corporate was not satisfied with that, and appears to have put pressure on the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
On 28 April 2023, the landlord sent the tenant an email seeking to terminate the tenancy on 28 days’ notice, and indicating that an application to the Tribunal would be made for commercial cleaning and the costs of the methamphetamine testing.
The tenant resisted that attempt. However, having been repeatedly accused of drug use, and had efforts to terminate the tenancy made, he felt insecure and sought alternative accommodation. The tenancy terminated on 5 June 2023.
The landlord sought compensation for the costs of commercial cleaning, the methamphetamine testing and water rates. The applications for cleaning and methamphetamine testing were dismissed by the Tribunal on the basis that the apartment was reasonably clean and tidy, and the methamphetamine testing yielded a negative result. The adjudicator found that there was insufficient evidence to find the tenant had used the premises for unlawful activity.
I agree with that conclusion entirely.
The tenant now seeks compensation for the attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
The landlord submits that they were caught in a difficult position because the body corporate did not accept the results of the methamphetamine testing.
While I have some sympathy for the landlord, who was caught between the body corporate and the tenant, the fact remains that landlords have obligations under the RTA to their tenants, and tenancies can only be terminated in accordance with the RTA.
A landlord can only terminate a tenancy on notice if the provisions of section 51 if the RTA apply.
Terminating the tenancy for breach of the body corporate rules would require the landlord to follow the correct process, culminating in an application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy. The tenant would be heard during the consideration of that application.
The landlord did not follow either s51 or the process for termination of the tenancy for a breach of the rules. The attempt to terminate the tenancy was unlawful and 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 landlord must have acted intentionally. The landlord is a property manager, and is expected to have knowledge of the provisions of the RTA. Such a blatant breach cannot be seen as inadvertent.
The effect on the tenant was the undermining of his tenancy, and the security of his housing, together with the stresses of repeated allegations of unlawful conduct.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in compliance with the RTA, particularly as it relates to the termination of tenancies and the impact of that on housing security.
Accordingly, I consider that this is an appropriate case for exemplary damages, and I award $2,000.00.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4708432 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 807, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4708432 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 807, 1 Courthouse Lane, 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