What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4749510?

The tribunal order states: Andrew Robinson, Oliver Dickson Sinclair, Ethan Orlando Pollard, Hamish

How much money was awarded in case 4749510?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749510?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10023248-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4749510?

The tribunal order states: Andrew Robinson, Oliver Dickson Sinclair, Ethan Orlando Pollard, Hamish

How much money was awarded in case 4749510?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749510?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10023248-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 543 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin Tenancy Tribunal Case 4749510 — Property damage

Order

Andrew Robinson, Oliver Dickson Sinclair, Ethan Orlando Pollard, Hamish Hunter, Julio Amiel Barbonio and Flynn Edward Antonio Jackson to pay Mrs Macs Properties Limited the bond of $2,100.00 calculated as shown in table below.
The application by Julio Amiel Barbonio for refund of his part of the bond is dismissed.
The application by Andrew Robinson, Oliver Dickson Sinclair, Ethan Orlando Pollard, and Hamish Hunter for compensation of $4,800.00 is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (3223162-024) to Mrs Macs Properties Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord and three tenants attended the hearing.
The landlord and six tenants were parties to a fixed term tenancy from 1/1/2023 to 31/12/2023 at $1,050.00 per week rent.
Although the tenants all signed individual agreements there was consensus that they were all jointly and severally liable for the tenancy.
During the year the relationship between various flatmates, and the landlord and some of the tenants deteriorated, resulting in three separate applications to the Tribunal.
The application by Julio Barbonio for his one sixth share of the bond is dismissed because he failed to appear and proceed with his claim.
Initially and before the tenancy ended, the landlord applied for compensation of $3,510.00 for carpet replacement, cleaning and repairs to kitchen chairs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing the landlord amended her claim to a refund of the bond for replacement of the lounge carpet.
After the tenancy ended four of the tenants applied for compensation of $4,800.00 for breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises due to the actions of the landlord. Landlord’s claim
The landlord sought refund of the bond of $2,100.00 for replacement of the lounge carpet due to staining and a hole.
In support of the claim the landlord provided an invoice and email from the carpet layer.
The landlord submitted that all the tenants had agreed to the carpet being replaced before the end of the tenancy.
Further the landlord suggested that the tenants had agreed to her receiving the bond for the carpet replacement, but they had not all signed the bond refund form.
In response, and while suggesting the damage was careless, the tenants agreed that the bond could be refunded to the landlord for the carpet replacement.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
As the parties have agreed an order has been made for refund of the bond to the landlord. Tenants’ claim
The tenants wanted compensation for what they believed were numerous breaches of their quiet enjoyment of the premises.

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

The tenants submitted that they had all paid their respective share of the bond by 12/8/2022 but the bond was not lodged until 6/10/2022.
In response the landlord advised that she had not lodged the bond until all the tenants from the other three flats she also owned in the complex had paid their bonds.
The landlord suggested this was a practise she always followed.
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.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond within the required legislative time frame.

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

The tenants’ suggested they found the actions of the landlord intrusive, aggressive, and unreasonable.
In particular, but not exclusively, the tenants were unhappy with: a. The state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord’s insistence on them needing to pay for a commercial cleaner, b. No initial property inspection report, c. The lack of a Healthy Homes Standards certificate and insurance details in the tenancy agreement, d. The oven and refrigerator not working, e. No red bin being provided despite being in the chattels list, f. Being asked to pay $50.00 to the person who re-inspected the premises, g. The landlord ignoring the section 56 notices issued on 5/7/2023 because these were not in the tenants’ name but sent by a support person, h. The landlord’s suggestion that they move out and pay compensation and seven weeks rent in advance.
In support of their claims the tenants provided extensive submissions, text messages and photographs.
The landlord disputed the tenant’s claims and provided texts, emails, photographs and two videos taken by a neighbouring tenant.
However, I declined to view the videos taken by two of the flatmates who did not attend the hearing.
The reason for this is because I consider the videos relate to tenant/tenant issues and it was not appropriate for the landlord to use them as evidence in a tenant/landlord dispute. The tenants also objected because the videos had not been taken with their knowledge or consent.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 38(3) 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.
I am persuaded by the totality of the evidence that the landlord breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises in circumstances that amounted to harassment.
The tone of the correspondence from the landlord and insistence on the tenants complying with demands outside the legislative requirements I consider indicated a pattern of behaviour designed to wear down the tenants.
Further, I am not persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that a Healthy Homes Standards certificate or insurance details were included in the tenancy agreement.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The tenants suggested that the landlord entered the premises without notice or consent on numerous occasions, especially at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
In particular the tenants felt that the landlord used the occasions she showed prospective tenants around to undertake inspections without notice.
On the other hand, the landlord believed she had given notice of inspections, albeit her evidence was unclear about which tenant agreed to allowing her access and for what purpose.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find I am not satisfied by the evidence that the landlord entered the premises without notice or consent.
It is possible that the landlord did enter without consent and notice on some occasions. However, the dysfunction between the various tenants and the fact the landlord dealt with individual tenants at different times does not persuade me this was a probability.
The landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to lodge the bond and breaching the tenants’ quiet enjoyment in their use of the premises, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I consider there is enough evidence to infer that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond in circumstances where she knew lodgement was a requirement.
The landlord is experienced in renting premises and by her own admission has at least three other flats. The fact that she followed the same process she has undertaken previously by waiting to lodge bonds until all tenants in all her flats had paid is in my view an unreasonable interpretation of the legislative requirements.
Further, I consider the landlords behaviour towards the legislative requirements amounted to wilful blindness. The legislation has changed significantly over the past decade and the landlord would be well advised to update herself on all aspects of the amendments rather than relying on what she has done in the past.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I consider, in the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties, it would not be just or fair to award exemplary damages or indeed compensation against the landlord.
My reason for this is that I consider the tenants have been sufficiently compensated because the landlord has chosen not to pursue any other compensation claims other than that agreed for replacement of the lounge carpet.
The evidence supports that during the tenancy the tenants breached the provisions of section 40 by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, damaging the premises and causing interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of neighbours.
Although the landlord has been partly successful with her claim, I have declined to award the filing fee.
I consider it is not appropriate to order name suppression of any party under section 95A because the tenants were not successful and the landlord only successful because of the agreement of the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749510 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 543 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749510 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 543 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Did the landlord enter without consent?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond late?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Did the landlord enter without consent?

Should exemplary damages and or compensation be awarded?

Property management