What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4751634 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $600.00 immediately, as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 4751634?

Property Damage: $660.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $990.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4751634?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4751634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10280977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4751634 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $600.00 immediately, as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 4751634?

Property Damage: $660.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $990.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4751634?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4751634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10280977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

82 Hillcrest Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4751634 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4751634 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,300.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Interference with services		$660.00	Interference with services
Exemplary damages: Termination when not entitled		$990.00	Termination when not entitled
Bond refund		$1,050.00	Bond refund
Total award	$3,300.00	$2,700.00
Net award	$600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $600.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and were assisted by a Korean interpreter.
There have been three hearings concerning this tenancy. The first hearing on 5 July 2023 was before another Adjudicator who determined that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The second hearing was held on 12 December 2023. That hearing was adjourned to 1 May 2024 as there was insufficient time to deal with both parties claims.
The tenancy began on 17 May 2016 and ended on 19 June 2023.
The tenant’s claim is in relation to: (a) Landlord’s failure to lodge the bond; (b) Refund of the bond; (c) Compensation for work by the tenant after the flood; (d) Landlord not replacing the carpet / failure to maintain; (e) Landlord terminating without grounds; (f) Landlord preventing tenant’s access to internet services; (g) Landlord using discriminatory language; and (h) Unlawful residential tenancy.
The landlord’s claim is in relation to: (a) Rent arrears; and (b) Compensation for vacated damage. Tenant’s application
In relation to the bond, it is agreed that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. He confirmed at the hearing that he still has the bond money.
Up until the declaration made by the Tribunal on 5 July 2023 the landlord had believed that this was a flatmate situation. For the tenant to succeed with a claim for exemplary damages in relation to not lodging the bond the landlord would need to have intentionally failed to lodge it. He would need to have been aware of the obligation for him to lodge the bond, but in this situation he did not. The tenant’s claim for damages in relation to failure to lodge the bond is dismissed.
The bond is released to the tenant in this order.
The tenant claims that the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by changing the password for internet access. The tenant had previous to this had access to the internet from the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged that he had done so and that previously they had shared the password for internet access.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord cut the tenant’s internet access after he had given notice for the tenant to vacate the premises. Two days prior to cutting access he had also issued the tenant with a Trespass Notice. 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.
For seven years prior to this act the tenant had enjoyed access to the internet as part of her tenancy. After changing the password, the landlord advised the tenant that she could pay $20 less for rent. The landlord intentionally interfered with the tenant’s internet access because he wanted her to leave the tenancy. This had a significant impact on the tenant, and she felt that the landlord’s actions breached the tenancy agreement.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $660.00 (equivalent to two weeks rent sought by the landlord) is reasonable.
The tenant claims the landlord has given notice to terminate when he was not entitled to and therefore 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.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord issued the tenant with notice to vacate with the last day being 11 April 2023. The notice does not comply with the Act and in particular section 51. Under that section the landlord must give either 63 days or 90 days’ notice depending on the reason for the notice. Instead, the landlord gave 21 days’ notice. Also, the landlord in this situation did not give a valid reason for ending the tenancy which is required by the Act. 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.
After issuing the notice to terminate the landlord went on to serve the tenant with a Trespass Notice. The landlord should not have served the tenant with either of these documents. I understand that the landlord was frustrated because the tenant was disrupting the repairs to the tenancy following the damage caused by the floods. But the landlord should have pursued matters differently.
The actions of the landlord had caused the tenant significant distress. I consider that an award of $990.00 (equivalent to three weeks rent sought by the landlord) is reasonable.
In relation to the tenant’s remaining claims there is insufficient evidence to support an award of damages against the landlord. The remaining tenant’s claims are dismissed. Landlord application
The landlord claims rent arrears of $3,300.00 and provided a rent summary showing the amount owed at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not dispute the amount owed but argued that she stopped paying rent because the landlord breached the contract. The breach of contract that she refers to is in relation to the landlord cutting off her access to the internet.
The tenant is not able to cease paying rent in such circumstances. The rent arrears sought is ordered.
The landlord sought compensation in relation to replacing the toilet seat and for damage resulting from when the tenant failed to allow repairs to be carried out.
In relation to the toilet seat, the photographs show that it is a very old toilet seat. It may be original from when the premises were built in the 1960s which means it would be more than 60 years old. The photographs also show that the plastic that the seat is made of has deteriorated to an extent that mould grows on the seat. I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the cost of replacing the toilet seat. It is clearly at the end of its useful life.
The landlord sought compensation in relation to damage caused when the tenant obstructed the repairs following the flood. The evidence shows that the tenant had been obstructive but there is insufficient evidence to show what damage has occurred because of her actions.
I am therefore unable to award the landlord damages in relation to either the toilet seat or the failure to carry out repairs. Those claims are dismissed.
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of the parties as they have applied for.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4751634 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,300.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Interference with services		$660.00	Interference with services
Exemplary damages: Termination when not entitled		$990.00	Termination when not entitled
Bond refund		$1,050.00	Bond refund
Total award	$3,300.00	$2,700.00
Net award	$600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $600.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and were assisted by a Korean interpreter.
There have been three hearings concerning this tenancy. The first hearing on 5 July 2023 was before another Adjudicator who determined that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The second hearing was held on 12 December 2023. That hearing was adjourned to 1 May 2024 as there was insufficient time to deal with both parties claims.
The tenancy began on 17 May 2016 and ended on 19 June 2023.
The tenant’s claim is in relation to: (a) Landlord’s failure to lodge the bond; (b) Refund of the bond; (c) Compensation for work by the tenant after the flood; (d) Landlord not replacing the carpet / failure to maintain; (e) Landlord terminating without grounds; (f) Landlord preventing tenant’s access to internet services; (g) Landlord using discriminatory language; and (h) Unlawful residential tenancy.
The landlord’s claim is in relation to: (a) Rent arrears; and (b) Compensation for vacated damage. Tenant’s application
In relation to the bond, it is agreed that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. He confirmed at the hearing that he still has the bond money.
Up until the declaration made by the Tribunal on 5 July 2023 the landlord had believed that this was a flatmate situation. For the tenant to succeed with a claim for exemplary damages in relation to not lodging the bond the landlord would need to have intentionally failed to lodge it. He would need to have been aware of the obligation for him to lodge the bond, but in this situation he did not. The tenant’s claim for damages in relation to failure to lodge the bond is dismissed.
The bond is released to the tenant in this order.
The tenant claims that the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by changing the password for internet access. The tenant had previous to this had access to the internet from the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged that he had done so and that previously they had shared the password for internet access.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord cut the tenant’s internet access after he had given notice for the tenant to vacate the premises. Two days prior to cutting access he had also issued the tenant with a Trespass Notice. 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.
For seven years prior to this act the tenant had enjoyed access to the internet as part of her tenancy. After changing the password, the landlord advised the tenant that she could pay $20 less for rent. The landlord intentionally interfered with the tenant’s internet access because he wanted her to leave the tenancy. This had a significant impact on the tenant, and she felt that the landlord’s actions breached the tenancy agreement.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $660.00 (equivalent to two weeks rent sought by the landlord) is reasonable.
The tenant claims the landlord has given notice to terminate when he was not entitled to and therefore 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.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord issued the tenant with notice to vacate with the last day being 11 April 2023. The notice does not comply with the Act and in particular section 51. Under that section the landlord must give either 63 days or 90 days’ notice depending on the reason for the notice. Instead, the landlord gave 21 days’ notice. Also, the landlord in this situation did not give a valid reason for ending the tenancy which is required by the Act. 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.
After issuing the notice to terminate the landlord went on to serve the tenant with a Trespass Notice. The landlord should not have served the tenant with either of these documents. I understand that the landlord was frustrated because the tenant was disrupting the repairs to the tenancy following the damage caused by the floods. But the landlord should have pursued matters differently.
The actions of the landlord had caused the tenant significant distress. I consider that an award of $990.00 (equivalent to three weeks rent sought by the landlord) is reasonable.
In relation to the tenant’s remaining claims there is insufficient evidence to support an award of damages against the landlord. The remaining tenant’s claims are dismissed. Landlord application
The landlord claims rent arrears of $3,300.00 and provided a rent summary showing the amount owed at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not dispute the amount owed but argued that she stopped paying rent because the landlord breached the contract. The breach of contract that she refers to is in relation to the landlord cutting off her access to the internet.
The tenant is not able to cease paying rent in such circumstances. The rent arrears sought is ordered.
The landlord sought compensation in relation to replacing the toilet seat and for damage resulting from when the tenant failed to allow repairs to be carried out.
In relation to the toilet seat, the photographs show that it is a very old toilet seat. It may be original from when the premises were built in the 1960s which means it would be more than 60 years old. The photographs also show that the plastic that the seat is made of has deteriorated to an extent that mould grows on the seat. I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the cost of replacing the toilet seat. It is clearly at the end of its useful life.
The landlord sought compensation in relation to damage caused when the tenant obstructed the repairs following the flood. The evidence shows that the tenant had been obstructive but there is insufficient evidence to show what damage has occurred because of her actions.
I am therefore unable to award the landlord damages in relation to either the toilet seat or the failure to carry out repairs. Those claims are dismissed.
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of the parties as they have applied for.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4751634 — Rent arrears at 82 Hillcrest Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4751634 — Rent arrears at 82 Hillcrest Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions