What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4731969 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4731969?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731969?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10607073-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4731969 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4731969?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731969?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10607073-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

80 Everglade Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4731969 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731969 — net $5,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain- leaks MCPM	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain- leaks MCPM
Exemplary damages: s60AA-MCPM	$4,000.00	s60AA-MCPM
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,020.44

On the 19 April 2024 I made a determination in respect of the tenant’s claims for breaches of quiet enjoyment against Manukau City Property Management Limited (MCPM) and I also dismissed the landlord’s claims. I adjourned the tenant’s other claims for failure to maintain and terminating without grounds to another hearing. I refer any reader of this decision to my decision of the 19 April 2024.

That hearing of the remaining claims was held on the 1 July 2024. The landlord Ms Seng and her Counsel attended as did the tenant [The tenant/s]. Whilst I had summonsed Ms Kaur to the hearing, it was not clear if the Registry had issued the summons or not. In any case Ms Kaur was aware of the proceedings and the hearing because she wrote to the Registry advising that she could not attend due to illness and that MCPM was no longer the property manager. I am satisfied from those communications with the Registry that Ms Kaur was aware of the very serious allegations that have been levelled against her by both the landlord owner and the tenant.

Whilst the background of this matter is set out in full in my decision dated 19 April 2024, the seriousness of these claims and the facts as they have borne out in both hearings requires me to summarise the factual determinations that I have made: a) The tenancy began in 2021 shortly after the owners of the property purchased the property. At all times during the tenancy, the tenancy was managed by Manukau City Property Management Limited (MCPM) and Ms Param Kaur Grewal (Ms Kaur) was the property manager. The property is a 3-bedroom home. The tenant lived there with her young children. b) At all times during the tenancy the tenant’s rent was redirected from her benefit by Ministry of Social Development (MSD) c) The tenant had borrowed the bond from MSD and was paying it back. d) The tenancy ended the 7 December 2023 after Manukau City Property Management Limited gave the tenant a 90 day notice. e) On or about the 11 March 2024 the owners terminated the property management agreement with MCPM. It was after that date, when Ms Seng went to the property with the new property manager to see the tenant, that they were informed by the person now living at the house, that they were the new tenants, and that [The tenant/s] was no longer living there. f) MCPM gave the tenant a rent increase from $770- $870 per week on the 28 March 2023, the landlord Ms Seng said she neither knew or instructed MCPM to give the tenant a rent increase. In fact, Ms Seng understood that the weekly rent was $740 and that she was paying MCPM $50 per week in commission, and was receiving $690.00 into her bank account as the net rent. 1 In my decision of the 19 April 2024 I determined that the rent increase was invalid and ordered the landlord to repay the tenant the amount she had over paid. 2 1 See paragraphs 30 -33 of my decision dated 19 April 2024 2 See paragraphs 31-35 of my decision dated 19 April 2024. g) That MCPM/ Ms Kaur committed an unlawful act by breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in a way that constituted harassment of her by going to her house frequently without notice, attempting to get her to make false statements to MSD, asking her to pay an invoice for work that she was not liable for, and following her in her car. 3 h) That the tenant’s bond had been used to pay for an invoice that the tenant was not liable for. I ordered that the tenant’s bond be repaid to her. 4

The remaining claims are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property? b. Was the tenant given notice to terminate without grounds?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the property, because it did not fix a leak in the bathroom which was notified to Ms Kaur in March 2023.

On or about 21 March 2023, the tenant noticed that there was water making the wall and carpet wet in her son’s room, which adjoins the bathroom. The tenant noticed that a section of wallpaper had been peeled away from the wall, when she felt the wall, it was wet and so was the carpet underneath.

Soon after Ms Kaur and her partner came to the property and ‘fixed’ the water damage by repairing the wall and painting (this was the subject of the invoice, that I made determinations on in my decision of the 19 April 2024).

The tenant says that despite the cosmetic work that Ms Kaur did she did not fix the cause being the leak in the bathroom. This is supported by correspondence sent by Ms Kaur in September 2023, which refers to the leaks in the bathroom.

The tenant says that the day after she vacated the property, she went back to the property to pick up her washing machine, a tradesperson was in the house and was fixing something in the bathroom, the carpet had been ripped up just outside the bathroom, and the tenant could see it was black, which she thought was mould. The tenant says that it was obvious that there was a leak in the bathroom that had been there for some time.

The owners say that they have no idea what leaks there might have been or what work has been done, because even though the Tribunal has ruled that the owners are the lawful landlords in another case, involving the same property, before the 3 See paragraphs of 44 – 52 of my decision dated 19 April 2024. 4 See paragraphs 60-64 of my decision dated 19 April 2024. Tribunal involving the new tenants. 5 The owners have been unable to access the property, as MCPM has told the tenants that they are the property managers.

I am satisfied from the evidence that the leak in the bathroom was never repaired properly during the tenant’s tenancy. I am satisfied that the landlord committed an unlawful act under s 45(1A) RTA.

I award the tenant $1000.00 in exemplary damages for this repair. This amount takes into account the following: a) The nature and extent of the work. b) The fact that the tenant was unable to use her son’s bedroom to its full extent during the tenancy (the tenant told me that she was unable to use that room) but that is not supported by some photographs of the property which showed her son’s drawers and belongings in the room. The photographs also showed the mattress upturned leaning against the room, so I accept that the son may not have been sleeping in the room. c) That the landlord did some work to patch over the leak. d) That the tenant says she complained of the leak on numerous occasions. e) That the landlord (property manager) clearly knew about the leak, as the landlord told the tenant that the property was uninhabitable and or required extensive renovation as a result of the leak. f) It is in the public interest that when a tenant complains of leaks and water damage that they are investigated thoroughly and repaired promptly.

Did the landlord breach s 60AA?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.

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. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant was given a notice to end the tenancy on the 7 September in the covering letter the landlord said: 5 TT 4856282

The ‘90’ day notice is copied here in full:

The owner tells me that they did not know about the repairs, nor did it instruct MCPM to authorise any repairs (the owners had to authorise repairs over $500 in the property management agreement). The owners tell me they knew nothing of the leaks, the repairs and had certainly had not given any instruction to MCPM to give notice to the tenant.

The tenant left the property as a result of being given notice.

As the landlord has not proven that the house needed extensive renovations or was uninhabitable then the landlord had no grounds to give the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy as such I am satisfied that the landlord committed an unlawful act by giving the tenant an unlawful termination notice (s 60AA).

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 make an exemplary damages award of $4,000, in this instance. This takes into account: a) The effect on the tenant. At the hearing the tenant became very distressed when she was asked what the effect of the notice was on her. She told me that because of the issues with the bond, and that she was unable to ask MSD for another bond, she could not access another rental property. This meant that the tenant and her four young children had to go into emergency accommodation for two and half months, until community housing became available. The tenant tells me that her and her children were placed in a one bedroom ‘motel’ room. It was the middle of summer, and she was fearful of her children playing outside as there were not really any safe places for them to play. There was considerable antisocial behaviour by other tenants at the housing complex and the tenant says that she felt scared for her and her children the whole time she was there. She says she became depressed and withdrawn. She felt like she had failed her children, because she had tried to do everything properly with her Everglade house, by making the sure the rent was paid by MSD and always up to date and notifying the landlord if their were problems, but had still not been able to keep that tenancy. In short, the tenant tells me it was a horrible time for her and it is evident that she has anxiety and stress even in retelling. b) The intention of the landlord in committing the act. MCPM (Ms Kaur) was acting as the landlord’s agent. As such the landlord is liable for the actions of their agent. Reading all the correspondence between the parties I am left with the impression high degree of calculation, intention and manipulation by Ms Kaur in dealing with the tenant. When the tenant makes it clear that she will not give in to Ms Kaur’s demands regarding the bond and when the tenant challenged the rent arrears (which the tenant was right to do) Ms Kaur gave the tenant this notice. c) Whilst some bathroom work occurred after the tenant left, (the tenant saw the repair person there) the work was not extensive, the tenant had another bathroom at the property they could have used, so termination was not necessary. d) The owner gave evidence that Ms Kaur has put new tenants in at a much higher rental than what the tenant was paying. e) The public interest. It is in the public interest that a significant award is made when an agent gives notice to terminate in circumstances that are unwarranted. The notice caused the tenant and her young children to go into emergency housing, that has very real financial and social implications for the taxpayer. The award must be such to act as a deterrent to other landlords not to use termination as threat to ensure complete compliance of any agents instructions or acquiescence by tenants. Other observations.

I record that I am satisfied that the owners knew nothing of Ms Kaur’s or MCPM’s actions. Nevertheless, because the owners are recorded on the tenancy agreement, they are liable for the actions of their agent, and it is for this reason and this reason alone that I make the awards against them. I commend the owners for their co-operation at the hearings and the kindness at the hearings that they demonstrated towards the tenant. Name suppression and filing fee

I suppress the tenant’s name and award her the filing fee.

I have considered suppressing the name of the owner; however, I consider that this decision will have considerable public interest because of the agent’s conduct. I consider that granting name suppression on the owners is likely to fetter the publication of this matter, and therefore I do not grant name suppression to the landlords.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731969 — net $5,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain- leaks MCPM	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain- leaks MCPM
Exemplary damages: s60AA-MCPM	$4,000.00	s60AA-MCPM
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,020.44

The remaining claims are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the property? b. Was the tenant given notice to terminate without grounds?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the property, because it did not fix a leak in the bathroom which was notified to Ms Kaur in March 2023.

Did the landlord breach s 60AA?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.

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.

The tenant was given a notice to end the tenancy on the 7 September in the covering letter the landlord said: 5 TT 4856282

The ‘90’ day notice is copied here in full:

The tenant left the property as a result of being given notice.

I suppress the tenant’s name and award her the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731969 — Exemplary damages at 80 Everglade Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731969 — Exemplary damages at 80 Everglade Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Did the landlord breach s 60AA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Did the landlord breach s 60AA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions