What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4727642 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, as

How much money was awarded in case 4727642?

Compensation: Delay in providing ade…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727642?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10165336-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4727642 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, as

How much money was awarded in case 4727642?

Compensation: Delay in providing ade…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727642?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10165336-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3A Memorial Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4727642 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4727642 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$500.00	LandlordTenant
Compensation: Delay in providing adequate wi-fi	$500.00	Delay in providing adequate wi-fi
Net award	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,000.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4727642 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$500.00	LandlordTenant
Compensation: Delay in providing adequate wi-fi	$500.00	Delay in providing adequate wi-fi
Net award	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,000.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, as calculated below:
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person on 22 February 2024.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages from the landlord for various alleged breaches.
The compensation claims include an allegation that the tenant was pressured into signing the tenancy agreement, there were deficiencies in the tenancy agreement, a delay in the landlord providing adequate wi-fi, and a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by another of the boarding house tenants.
As well the tenant alleges a breach of his quiet enjoyment because the landlord would not allow overnight stays by guests in the boarding house tenancy.
The tenant’s exemplary damages claims relate to alleged harassment by the landlord, a failure by the landlord to give a receipt for the bond, and alleged retaliatory notice given by the landlord to end the tenancy. He also sought exemplary damages for the inadequate wi-fi. Procedural note
This application was one of four brought by separate tenants in the same boarding house each with their own tenancy agreement.
I heard the applications separately over two days.
I reserved my decisions. I dismissed one application since there was no appearance by the tenant.
Two of the applications are similar and I will issue separate decisions on this application and the other, at the same time, to ensure consistency.
The other tenant application with a landlord cross application is more comprehensive. My decision on those applications will be issued separately, but I require further time to complete it. The tenant’s claims Compensation
The Tribunal may 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 the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
The first point to note is that compensation is linked to a landlord breach. The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint.
That a tenant might not like the way in which a landlord acts, or the way issues are brought to their attention, does not constitute a breach of quiet enjoyment. Hurt or injured feelings is not enough.
Nor do technical breaches usually attract an award of compensation.
The tenant referred to the kitchen kettle switch not turning off constituting a fire risk. There is no evidence of that. Many kettles require a manual turn off. An minor inconvenience is not a breach.
The tenant alleges that the tenancy agreement was deficient. Generally, I find that the tenancy agreement complied with the requirements of sections 13A and 66C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant alleges that he was pressured into signing the tenancy agreement. I do not accept that. The tenant is an adult. Even if the landlord said he would offer the tenancy to someone else if the tenant did not accept it, that is simply part and parcel of the negotiation process. The landlord committed no breach for which the Tribunal could award compensation.
The tenant alleges that the internet/wi-fi was inadequate and effectively non- operational for a period of about one month during which time he could not study at home but had to remain at university.
I find this claim proved. Landlords who offer tenancies to students must be aware of the need to provide efficient functioning internet/wi-fi. Students require that to study.
The landlord explained why there was a delay in getting well-functioning wi-fi. I gained the impression he minimised the effects of the poorly performing wi-fi on the tenant.
I accept the explanation for the delay. Nevertheless, the tenant was impacted significantly by this. He has established a claim for compensation.
I do not consider that the landlord committed an unlawful act. There was access to the internet, but it was not of sufficient quality. The criteria for awarding exemplary damages are not met.
But, for the tenant’s considerable inconvenience for the limited period when the internet was not of sufficient quality, I award him compensation of $500.00.
The tenant alleges that his quiet enjoyment was affected by the behaviour of another tenant who was threatening in his behaviour to the point where he had to call the police.
The landlord said he acted to end that tenant’s tenancy, but he had to follow correct process by giving him 28 days’ notice. He said he was never told of any police involvement and the other tenants never mentioned it.
I have some sympathy with the tenant whose peace, comfort and quiet enjoyment was affected by the tenant whose tenancy was terminated on notice.
Boarding house tenancies often see people living together who do not necessarily get along.
The landlord is correct; he had to follow due process. But he did not necessarily have to give 28 days’ notice to the badly behaving tenant.
The landlord seemed to think he could not have terminated the other tenant’s tenancy earlier because he did not make any actual threats.
That is not the test. The landlord could have terminated the other tenant’s tenancy immediately if satisfied that the tenant had caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants – see section 66U(1) RTA.
The landlord’s evidence establishes that he was aware of the disruption the other tenant was causing. He said that ‘others had complained about him intimidating them’.
The landlord said that he could not have done more than he did. I do not agree. He could have evicted the other tenant immediately because there was ample evidence that that tenant was causing serious disruption to the other tenants, including this tenant.
I find that the landlord’s inaction breached this tenant’s right of quiet enjoyment. The other tenant’s actions caused him serious distress.
However, the other tenant was at the premises for 30 days only, so the period of the breach was limited.
For this breach by the landlord, I award the tenant compensation of $500.00.
The tenant alleges that the landlord prevented him from having anyone stay overnight. The landlord agreed that he prohibited that because of his concerns for safety. He said if all the tenants did that, the premises could have become over-crowded.
The landlord’s blanket ban was an interference with the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises, but a minimal breach in the context of a boarding house. I am not persuaded to award compensation to the tenant for this breach. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They 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 (referred to above) 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: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Internet/wi-fi
I have addressed the issue of the inadequate wi-fi under the tenant’s compensation claims, since that it where is best lies. I cannot conclude that the landlord intentionally failed to provide wi-fi, only that he was negligent in not ensuring adequate wi-fi for the tenants who were students and who were dependent on adequate operational wi-fi. There was no intentional act by the landlord, necessary before exemplary damages can be awarded. Harassment
The tenant alleges that the landlord harassed him. He said the landlord accused him of breaking a tap. He referred to the landlord serving him with a trespass notice for after the tenancy ended.
The landlord denied accusing the tenant of breaking the tap. He said the plumber who fixed it queried what had happened, so he asked the tenant if he knew anything about it.
The landlord denied issuing a formal trespass notice. He said he simply reminded the tenant to leave and if he did not, he would be considered a trespasser.
As I noted earlier, the Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. Even if the landlord was robust in his dealings with the tenants, that does not constitute a breach, and certainly does not meet the threshold for harassment.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Bond receipt
The landlord said that the bond was paid electronically, and a receipt issued (by his accountant) electronically.
The tenant said he did not receive the bond receipt.
For exemplary damages to be awarded the tenant must show that the landlord acted with intent. I accept the landlord’s evidence that his accountant issued a bond receipt electronically. That the tenant says he did not receive it does not establish any intentional act by the landlord.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
The tenant alleges that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory because he received it after the landlord became aware that he had lodged a Tribunal application.
The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was served on this and other tenants on 29 November 2023. The tenant lodged his application on 31 October 2023.
In some circumstances that might be considered a retaliatory notice, though the gap in time probably counts against such a finding.
The landlord gave evidence that he decided to put the premises on the market for sale. They are currently listed for sale with Harcourts.
I accept that the landlord ended the tenancies of all remaining tenants for a valid reason.
The tenant has not proved that the notice to terminate was a retaliatory notice. I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $1,000.00 for the failure to provide adequate, operational wi-fi which caused the tenant distress and inconvenience, and for failing to act more quickly to terminate the tenancy of the tenant whose behaviour caused this tenant and the other tenants serious disruption.
The rest of the tenant’s application for compensation and the application for exemplary damages are dismissed.
I make no award of the filing fee as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
The tenant sought a name suppression order. The application for name suppression is declined as the application is only successful in small part– see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4727642 — Tenancy dispute at 3A Memorial Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4727642 — Tenancy dispute at 3A Memorial Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8053

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