What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774302 about?

The tribunal order states: Srinivasan Shankar and Bhavya Sriviasan must pay [The tenant/s] $1,420.44

How much money was awarded in case 4774302?

Compensation: Bond Process: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Amenity: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774302?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774302?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10019184-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774302 about?

The tribunal order states: Srinivasan Shankar and Bhavya Sriviasan must pay [The tenant/s] $1,420.44

How much money was awarded in case 4774302?

Compensation: Bond Process: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Amenity: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774302?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774302?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10019184-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35A Penryn Drive, Camborne, Porirua 5026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774302 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774302 — net $1,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lack of amenity	$500.00	lack of amenity
Compensation: bond process	$900.00	bond process
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,420.44

Order

Srinivasan Shankar and Bhavya Sriviasan must pay [The tenant/s] $1,420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

[The tenant/s] have sought compensation for issues they had with the garage flooding, and with having their bond refunded.
Mr Shankar agrees to compensate them the $500 they seek with respect to the garage 1 , therefore that order is made by consent. The bond
The tenants are concerned with the way the bond was refunded to them. It is agreed that at the final inspection on 15 November Mrs Srinivasan agreed to refund the bond to them minus an (at that time undetermined) amount for some minor painting. They say they partly filled out the bond form at the inspection, but Mrs Srinivasan said she had to wait for Mr Shankar to complete and sign it too before it was sent to the Bond Centre. The tenants agree they signed a blank inspection report. Mr Shankar subsequently filled out the form.
Although there is conflicting evidence as to whether the tenants wrote in their names and bank account number on the bond refund form, I do not make a finding on that as for all intents and purposes the tenants signed an incomplete bond refund form. As discussed with all parties at the hearing, it is not appropriate for anyone to ever sign a form that is not complete, nor is it appropriate to ask someone to do that.
The day following the inspection, Mr Shankar told the tenants that he needed to deduct $67 for the painting and the rest would be refunded to them. They agreed with this.
However, Mr Shankar did not submit the bond form as he said he would. Therefore, when the tenants heard nothing further about the refund, despite chasing up, they filed a single party application to the Bond Centre for the bond to be transferred to them in full. At that time they desperately needed the money and the delay was proving very stressful.
The Bond Centre wrote to the landlord telling them that the tenants had sought a full refund. As a result of that letter Mr Shankar completed the bond form directing that the full amount be transferred to him, rather than what was agreed with the tenants. It was transferred to him in full on the 15 th of December.
Mr Shankar did not return to New Zealand from Australia until 25 December and met with the tenants the following day. After their meeting he transferred the bond back to them (in two amounts) which they received on the 27 th .
Mr Shankar says he asked for the whole bond to be transferred to him so that he could sort out an issue of some concrete on the property which his wife said 1 section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the tenants installed without consent from them. Mrs Srinivasan however confirmed in evidence that they had seen the concrete during the tenancy and were in fact happy with it, so nothing needed to be deducted from the bond for that.
The parties had an agreement that the bond would be transferred to the tenants minus $86. This was breached as the bond was not transferred to them, but to the landlords. Mr Shankar knew the tenants had applied for all of the bond because the Bond Centre had told him that. He also knew the tenants expected $2,433 from the bond. Despite knowing this, he told the Bond Centre by way of the bond form that they all agreed that the bond should be transferred to him in full.
Mr Shankar agrees that this was the incorrect process, and they should not have asked the tenants to sign a blank form, delayed on filing the form with the Bond Centre or told the Bond Centre that all parties agreed on a full refund to him. He is apologetic and says he has learnt from the situation.
Because of the delay in bond refund [The tenant/s] had to draw down a loan from his employer to pay his bond in his new home. He says he would not have had to do this had he received his bond as expected. Both tenants say this was an incredibly stressful time for them and they felt as though they were being strung along deceptively.
There was a delay here with the bond refund although it was not excessive. I appreciate it felt excessive to the tenants. There is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that requires landlords to refund the bond within a specific time frame.
What is the most concerning is that agreement was reached about how the bond would be refunded and that was reneged on. Further, Mr Shankar provided a form to the Bond Centre that was essentially false. He then did not transfer it, or the tenants’ portion of it, to them once he had it, for several weeks.
The tenants seek $1300 compensation for the stress they were put through over this refund.
The Tribunal has the authority 2 to award damages for stress and inconvenience. It does so on the basis that the law of contract allows such damages where the purpose or one of the purposes of the contract is the peace and comfort of the party and, in the case of a tenant, that is regarded as one of the purposes of a tenancy agreement.
Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove breach of an obligation or right, 2 77(2)(n) RTA damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
As a starting point the Tribunal adopts the position that a tenancy agreement involves a relationship: relationships are rarely smooth, and a tenant must expect some disruption or inconvenience from to time to time. Some degree of anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to rights based on promises, and a contracting party has traditionally been deemed to take the risk. Accordingly, when considering the level of damages to award, it is well established that where the loss suffered is intangible such as here, awards must be kept modest.
Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 is a previous case which suggests appropriate bands where making awards for emotional harm damages, as follows: “ A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
Adopting that formular, I consider this a situation of inconvenience, frustration and disappointment. As such, I find that an award of $900 is reasonable in the circumstances. In coming to this amount, I have taken into account all of the circumstances but placed particular weight on the following: i. The tenants were told a number of different things, many of which were reneged on. ii. The landlord provided a false form to the Bond Centre. iii. The landlord has apologised, accepted where he went wrong and says he will learn from this. iv. Bond money belongs to a tenant, and it is of significant interest to both the tenant and the public that the money is held securely with the Bond Centre and dealt with appropriate at the end of the tenancy.
There is also a separate issue here of the “dog bond”. When the tenants got a dog, the landlord sought a separate bond for any damage it may do. They agreed to this and paid it. It was refunded to them a month after the tenancy, on 7 December. They make no claim with respect to this, but I do note for the parties’ information that it is unlawful for a landlord to seek any other security from a tenant other than the bond; see section 18A of the RTA.
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve their application for suppression; see sections 102 and 95A of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774302 — net $1,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lack of amenity	$500.00	lack of amenity
Compensation: bond process	$900.00	bond process
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,420.44

Order

Srinivasan Shankar and Bhavya Sriviasan must pay [The tenant/s] $1,420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

[The tenant/s] have sought compensation for issues they had with the garage flooding, and with having their bond refunded.
Mr Shankar agrees to compensate them the $500 they seek with respect to the garage 1 , therefore that order is made by consent. The bond
The tenants are concerned with the way the bond was refunded to them. It is agreed that at the final inspection on 15 November Mrs Srinivasan agreed to refund the bond to them minus an (at that time undetermined) amount for some minor painting. They say they partly filled out the bond form at the inspection, but Mrs Srinivasan said she had to wait for Mr Shankar to complete and sign it too before it was sent to the Bond Centre. The tenants agree they signed a blank inspection report. Mr Shankar subsequently filled out the form.
Although there is conflicting evidence as to whether the tenants wrote in their names and bank account number on the bond refund form, I do not make a finding on that as for all intents and purposes the tenants signed an incomplete bond refund form. As discussed with all parties at the hearing, it is not appropriate for anyone to ever sign a form that is not complete, nor is it appropriate to ask someone to do that.
The day following the inspection, Mr Shankar told the tenants that he needed to deduct $67 for the painting and the rest would be refunded to them. They agreed with this.
However, Mr Shankar did not submit the bond form as he said he would. Therefore, when the tenants heard nothing further about the refund, despite chasing up, they filed a single party application to the Bond Centre for the bond to be transferred to them in full. At that time they desperately needed the money and the delay was proving very stressful.
The Bond Centre wrote to the landlord telling them that the tenants had sought a full refund. As a result of that letter Mr Shankar completed the bond form directing that the full amount be transferred to him, rather than what was agreed with the tenants. It was transferred to him in full on the 15 th of December.
Mr Shankar did not return to New Zealand from Australia until 25 December and met with the tenants the following day. After their meeting he transferred the bond back to them (in two amounts) which they received on the 27 th .
Mr Shankar says he asked for the whole bond to be transferred to him so that he could sort out an issue of some concrete on the property which his wife said 1 section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the tenants installed without consent from them. Mrs Srinivasan however confirmed in evidence that they had seen the concrete during the tenancy and were in fact happy with it, so nothing needed to be deducted from the bond for that.
The parties had an agreement that the bond would be transferred to the tenants minus $86. This was breached as the bond was not transferred to them, but to the landlords. Mr Shankar knew the tenants had applied for all of the bond because the Bond Centre had told him that. He also knew the tenants expected $2,433 from the bond. Despite knowing this, he told the Bond Centre by way of the bond form that they all agreed that the bond should be transferred to him in full.
Mr Shankar agrees that this was the incorrect process, and they should not have asked the tenants to sign a blank form, delayed on filing the form with the Bond Centre or told the Bond Centre that all parties agreed on a full refund to him. He is apologetic and says he has learnt from the situation.
Because of the delay in bond refund [The tenant/s] had to draw down a loan from his employer to pay his bond in his new home. He says he would not have had to do this had he received his bond as expected. Both tenants say this was an incredibly stressful time for them and they felt as though they were being strung along deceptively.
There was a delay here with the bond refund although it was not excessive. I appreciate it felt excessive to the tenants. There is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that requires landlords to refund the bond within a specific time frame.
What is the most concerning is that agreement was reached about how the bond would be refunded and that was reneged on. Further, Mr Shankar provided a form to the Bond Centre that was essentially false. He then did not transfer it, or the tenants’ portion of it, to them once he had it, for several weeks.
The tenants seek $1300 compensation for the stress they were put through over this refund.
The Tribunal has the authority 2 to award damages for stress and inconvenience. It does so on the basis that the law of contract allows such damages where the purpose or one of the purposes of the contract is the peace and comfort of the party and, in the case of a tenant, that is regarded as one of the purposes of a tenancy agreement.
Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove breach of an obligation or right, 2 77(2)(n) RTA damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
As a starting point the Tribunal adopts the position that a tenancy agreement involves a relationship: relationships are rarely smooth, and a tenant must expect some disruption or inconvenience from to time to time. Some degree of anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to rights based on promises, and a contracting party has traditionally been deemed to take the risk. Accordingly, when considering the level of damages to award, it is well established that where the loss suffered is intangible such as here, awards must be kept modest.
Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 is a previous case which suggests appropriate bands where making awards for emotional harm damages, as follows: “ A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
Adopting that formular, I consider this a situation of inconvenience, frustration and disappointment. As such, I find that an award of $900 is reasonable in the circumstances. In coming to this amount, I have taken into account all of the circumstances but placed particular weight on the following: i. The tenants were told a number of different things, many of which were reneged on. ii. The landlord provided a false form to the Bond Centre. iii. The landlord has apologised, accepted where he went wrong and says he will learn from this. iv. Bond money belongs to a tenant, and it is of significant interest to both the tenant and the public that the money is held securely with the Bond Centre and dealt with appropriate at the end of the tenancy.
There is also a separate issue here of the “dog bond”. When the tenants got a dog, the landlord sought a separate bond for any damage it may do. They agreed to this and paid it. It was refunded to them a month after the tenancy, on 7 December. They make no claim with respect to this, but I do note for the parties’ information that it is unlawful for a landlord to seek any other security from a tenant other than the bond; see section 18A of the RTA.
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve their application for suppression; see sections 102 and 95A of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774302 — Tenancy dispute at 35A Penryn Drive, Camborne, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774302 — Tenancy dispute at 35A Penryn Drive, Camborne, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions