What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713300 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay Ajay Sharma $1,000.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4713300?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713300?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9656771-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713300 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay Ajay Sharma $1,000.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4713300?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713300?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9656771-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713300 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713300 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,000.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713300 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,000.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay Ajay Sharma $1,000.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 November 2023.
This is a boarding house tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 8 January 2023 and is current.
The tenant’s application was confusing. It initially included claims on behalf of other tenants. Those tenants did not wish to be a party to these proceedings and the claims are dismissed.
The nature of the remaining claims was not readily apparent from the application filed. It appeared at the hearing that the remaining tenant claims were; • Work orders in relation to Wi-Fi. • Failure by the landlord to maintain the Wi-Fi. • Failure by the landlord to maintain a tap. • Breach of the tenants quiet enjoyment of the premises. • The boarding agreement terms did not comply with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). • Exemplary damages where available for proven breaches. General Law
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
In this matter the onus or job of proving the claims fall on the tenant.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision. Work Order
During the course of the hearing, I was advised that the WIFI was now working correctly. As a result, the application for work orders is no longer required and that application is dismissed. Failure to Maintain
The tenant says that between the commencement of his tenancy in January and 22 August 2023, the WIFI in his room did not work.
The tenant says that he informed the landlord of the issue within a few days of moving in.
The tenant says that the landlord said that he had checked the Wi-Fi and that it was working. The tenant says that after filing this application with the Tribunal, the landlord installed a new modem and that the Wi-Fi now works.
Section 66I (1)(b) RTA requires the landlord of a boarding house to ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair.
The definition of “premises” in s.66B RTA includes facilities of the boarding house. “Facilities” are defined as the facilities provided by the landlord for the shared use of the tenants. I find that WIFI is a facility and accordingly the landlord is obliged to keep it in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord says that the WIFI has at all times been operational and points to the boarding house agreement, which records that the landlord will provide “wireless internet at no extra cost, provided there is reasonable usage”. The landlord says that the amount of internet availability is dependent on the internet usage by tenants at any one time. The landlord said that some of the delay in having the issue addressed was due to his lack of knowledge of how to install it.
The internet usage has been improved since the installation of a new modem. That would suggest as a matter of logic that the previous system did not provide sufficient usage for the number of tenants.
Where a maintenance issue is brought to the attention of the landlord by a tenant, the landlord should be given a reasonable time to repair the problem. I accept that the tenant gave the landlord notice of the issue at the commencement of the tenancy. I do not consider a period of approximately 8 months to be a reasonable period.
A failure by the landlord to comply with the requirement to maintain is an unlawful act (see s.66I (4) RTA).The Tribunal may award exemplary damages to a maximum of $7,200.00 for a breach. I find that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The courts have confirmed that for an act to be intentional the landlord must actually be aware of the breach, in the sense of acting deliberately and in full knowledge.
In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the court held that “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I find that the landlord had been informed of the issue with the Wi-Fi . The problem having been brought to his attention; the obligation was on the landlord to reasonably promptly take steps to repair it. The landlord did not take reasonable steps and in my view having been advised of the issue a that failure was intentional.
The interests of this tenant and tenants generally, where Wi-Fi is part of a tenancy package, is to have the Wi-Fi work. Of more recent years, working from home has become the “norm” and Wi-Fi is for many tenants an essential facility.
The tenant said that he had used his phone as a hot spot for work which was slow.
I consider that exemplary damages should be awarded in this matter. I am not aware of any other breaches by this landlord and the Wi-Fi issue has been corrected. I consider an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale to be appropriate. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.
The tenant claimed that a tap had not been maintained by the landlord. The tenant accepted that the tap had been repaired by the landlord within a few days. The landlord’s evidence is that it was repaired within 24 hours. I am not required to find which of these is correct. I consider a few days to be a reasonable time for a landlord to make repairs and the time taken is reasonable. The application is dismissed. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Every tenant is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption from the landlord or another tenant of the boarding house. The landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises (see s.66G RTA).
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. See section 66G(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant said that a fellow boarding house tenant [Tenant 2] had on occasions in September and October 2023 yelled at him.
The tenant said that he contacted the landlord to complain and that the landlord suggested that he contact the police, but took no further steps. The tenant said that this caused him a great deal of stress.
The landlord accepted that complaints by the tenant about [Tenant 2] had been brought to his attention. He said that he investigated the matter and that [Tenant 2] had been given notice to leave the premises and did so on 31 October 2023. [Tenant 2] had been at the premises for approximately 30 days in total.
I do not consider that there has been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The landlord has taken the complaint on board, investigated the issue and terminated [Tenant 2]’s tenancy within a reasonable period of time. The application is dismissed. Boarding House agreement
The agreement signed by the parties provides that the agreement can be terminated by 14 days’ notice in writing given by either party.
The RTA provides that a tenant may terminate a boarding house tenancy by giving a minimum of 48 hours’ notice. Termination by a landlord can be carried out with varying time frames depending on the reasons for the termination. The times range from immediately to 28 days.
Section 11 RTA provides that any agreement or any provision in any agreement that is inconsistent with the RTA shall be of no effect except where that term results in a landlord voluntarily waiving any right or power for more extensive obligations. Any purported waiver by a tenant shall be of no effect.
This means that the landlord can forgo any right to give notice to terminate a tenancy on less than 14 days, but cannot require the tenant to provide a minimum of 14 days’ notice.
No exemplary damages are available under this section as it is not an “unlawful act” as defined in the RTA.
The landlord advised that a revised edition of the boarding house agreement is now in use.
I declare the content of the previous agreement as it relates to the period required for a tenant to give notice invalid.
I do not consider that the tenant has been wholly or substantially successful and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. I do not consider that the tenant has been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order regarding name suppression for the tenant. I consider that the landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713300 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713300 — 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