What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774800 about?

The tribunal order states: Lucy Ann Grace must pay [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately as set out in

How much money was awarded in case 4774800?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774800?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10719024-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774800 about?

The tribunal order states: Lucy Ann Grace must pay [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately as set out in

How much money was awarded in case 4774800?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774800?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10719024-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Miami Avenue, Surfdale, Waiheke Island 1081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774800 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774800 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach s13A tenancy agreement	$100.00	Breach s13A tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: Breach s19(2) bond	$250.00	Breach s19(2) bond
Exemplary damages: Breach s45(1A) smoke alarms	$400.00	Breach s45(1A) smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: Breach s46(3) locks	$500.00	Breach s46(3) locks
Exemplary damages: Breach s38(3) quiet enjoyment	$250.00	Breach s38(3) quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774800 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach s13A tenancy agreement	$100.00	Breach s13A tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: Breach s19(2) bond	$250.00	Breach s19(2) bond
Exemplary damages: Breach s45(1A) smoke alarms	$400.00	Breach s45(1A) smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: Breach s46(3) locks	$500.00	Breach s46(3) locks
Exemplary damages: Breach s38(3) quiet enjoyment	$250.00	Breach s38(3) quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Order

Lucy Ann Grace must pay [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy started on 24 July 2023 and ended on 20 September 2023.
The landlord claims she believed she was setting up an arrangement whereby she was getting in a boarder, and she provided an agreement to this effect.
At a hearing to decide jurisdiction on 16 April 2024 it was found that the arrangement was a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) applies.
The premises is a “cottage” or minor dwelling. The landlord lives in the main house on the same property.
At today’s hearing, the tenant made the following claims: a. The tenancy agreement did not comply with section 13A of the RTA; and b. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and c. The tenancy was unlawful; and d. There were no smoke alarms; and e. There were no locks; and f. The landlord breached her quiet enjoyment; and g. The landlord interfered with services to the premises.
All other claims were withdrawn by the tenant or not pursued. Tenancy agreement not containing correct information
The tenant claims the tenancy agreement did not contain all of the information that is required by the RTA, section 13A. For example it did not contain the landlord’s contact details, or the landlord’s address for service or the landlord’s bank account details.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord conceded her agreement with the tenant was consistent with what is required of a Tenancy Agreement, and explained that this was because she thought she was entitled to rent the cottage to a boarder. Her belief was based on the fact that she and her tenant shared the same utilities of power and internet connection.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The tenant claimed that not having a tenancy agreement meant she was not able to access assistance by having WINZ pay her bond.
I accept this was inconvenient for the tenant, but the bond that she managed to pay is her money from which she gains a benefit. I do not consider this to be a significant detriment to the tenant.
The landlord stated that she wrote a written Boarder Agreement that contained clauses that she considered important. However, there was much information that a correct Tenancy Agreement contains that provides protections for tenants and that wasn’t included in the landlord’s Boarder Agreement. It is important that landlords comply with their obligations and responsibilities under the RTA. I order $100.00 exemplary damages against the landlord. I consider this very low amount to be appropriate in the circumstances. Failure to lodge bond
The tenant claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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.
The landlord accepts she didn’t lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; she stated that she believed she wasn’t required to as the arrangement was a Boarder Agreement not a Tenancy Agreement.
I accept the landlord’s frank admission, which means I must draw the inevitable conclusion that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord refunded all but $86.00 of the tenant’s bond. The landlord claims the $86.00 she retained was half the cleaning cost at the end of the tenancy. I consider this aggravates the breach.
The lodging of the bond which is the tenant’s money, is a security for the landlord. Against this, a tenant’s interests are protected by the Bond Centre and the Tenancy Tribunal. The landlord has circumvented these protections for her own interests. It is a matter of public interest that the proper procedures are adhered to.
I order $250.00 exemplary damages against the landlord for this breach. Breach of smoke alarms regulations
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to comply with all requirements regarding smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See the RTA section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A.
The tenant claims there were no working smoke alarms at the premises during the tenancy. The landlord stated that she didn’t check whether there were smoke alarms or not because there was a short turn around between the previous tenancy and this one.
I accept what amounts to being undisputed evidence of the tenant and I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Not providing smoke alarms is a serious breach of the RTA. The landlord stated that if she had been advised of the lack of smoke alarms she would have installed them, but it is not the tenant’s responsibility to ensure landlords comply with the RTA. There is a high public interest in smoke alarms being present in all residential premises. I order $400.00, which I consider to be a moderate amount of exemplary damages in the circumstances, against the landlord. Unlawful premises
The tenant claimed the premises was an unlawful premises.
Under s 78A(2) of the RTA unlawful residential premises are: ...residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under s 36 has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Section 36 of the RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure there is no legal impediment to the occupation.
The premises were used for occupation by the tenant as a place of residence.
In support of her claim the tenant produced photographs of an exterior lean-to area that had a washing machine in it, that used an electric extension cord. The tenant also stated that the oven she used was outside in the lean-to and that there were no cooking facilities in the house. The tenant stated she used the oven approximately twice a week.
The landlord stated that the outside oven was rubbish that had not been disposed of and had never been intended to be used. She stated there were cooking elements inside the premises for cooking.
The tenant responded that she didn’t like using the cooking elements inside the house because of the steam and smells that were caused if she did use them.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the oven in the lean to had been intended to be used as part of the tenancy. The photographs show the lean-to to be a weather prone and dirty area with a lawn mower and paint cans in it. Neither party provided information as to why the oven, if intended to be used couldn’t have been situated inside the premises.
The conclusion I draw is that the oven in the lean-to was not intended to be used for cooking.
Whereas it appears the premises would not be compliant with the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, section 7, which requires every kitchenette to have an adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking, this was not part of the tenant’s submissions. Given this issue wasn’t canvassed by either party I simply refer to it for the benefit of both parties, but I do not make a finding on it.
Despite having concerns about the safety of what appears to be a common domestic extension cord being used outside to operate a washing machine, this does not provide a reason why the premises could not be lawfully occupied by a person.
This claim is not proved. Landlord fails to provide locks
The tenant claims the landlord did not provide and maintain locks such as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. See section 46(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord doesn’t dispute that she didn’t give the tenant keys. Her explanation is that the previous tenant lost the key.
The tenant produced an email from the landlord dated 19 August 2023 which explained that having seen the tenant’s drug use, and having asked her to leave, she would not be giving the tenant keys.
The tenant stated that without locks on the doors she didn’t feel safe in the premises on her own, and she felt a greater need to have friends stay at the premises with her. The tenant also had work commitments and thought her electronic devices were not safe being left in the premises unattended.
I find that this is an intentional breach of the RTA, which clearly had significant consequences for the tenant over the short duration of the tenancy. The landlord lived next door, and with a month to run on the tenancy clearly stated she had no intention to provide what the RTA requires landlords to provide for tenants. The right to have locks as set out in the RTA, contributes to a person’s feeling of security, safety and privacy, and should apply to a boarder living in a detached building, as much as to a tenant. As a result, I order what I consider to be a moderately high amount of exemplary damages of $500.00 against the landlord for this breach. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
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) RTA.
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.
The tenant claims the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment by making disparaging comments about the tenant’s boyfriend on one occasion, by making comments about what she perceived to be the tenant’s unlawful drug use, (including threatening to call the police) on two or more occasions, and by approaching the premises and on one occasion taking photographs of the inside of the tenant’s premises through the window. The tenant said she also received many texts from the landlord, and she had to ask the landlord to send emails not texts. She said she felt bullied and intimidated by the landlord.
The tenant produced a letter from her psychiatrist, [redacted], who said he has been treating the tenant for depression and anxiety since 2012. The letter includes an outline of the tenant’s version of events which she gave to [her psychiatrist] in September 2023. The letter also reports the psychiatrist’s observations on the tenant since the end of the tenancy. He asks that the court [sic] considers the impact on the tenant in determining the outcome of the hearing.
In my view, the letter doesn’t carry much weight: It sets out what I had already heard from the tenant in person more fully today. Nor am I prepared to attribute a two month tenancy to be a significant cause of a person’s mental condition subsequent to the tenancy, when the person has a history of treatment for depression and anxiety over the last 12 years.
The landlord denied ever trying to bully or intimidate the tenant. She stated that she received multiple abusive phone calls from the tenant, to the extent that she sought a trespass order against her.
A landlord has a right to report to the police unlawful acts being committed by a tenant, and to advise the tenant of this. I consider occasional remarks made in passing about a tenant’s personal life or acquaintances may be insensitive or intrusive, and to be a low-level breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment: But this doesn’t amount to harassment.
However, a landlord taking photographs of the tenant’s belongings through a window of the premises is a clear breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I therefore ask myself whether, this combined with ongoing remarks that the tenant finds offensive, amounts to a pattern of behaviour that amounts to harassment, and I believe it does, albeit at the lower end of seriousness.
The balance of power between a landlord and a tenant is not equal and the landlord has responsibilities that reflects this. The proximity of the two premises to one another is such that the landlord must be particularly cautious to not impinge on the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
I find the claim proved, and I award $250.00 exemplary damages against the landlord. Restricting services
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services 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 the RTA, section 45(2).
The tenant claims the landlord breached this obligation by giving the tenant the wrong password to access the internet.
The tenant accepted she could still access the internet through her own connection.
The landlord provided information that showed the tenant had entered the wrong password.
“Services” is not defined in the RTA, but I note that the services listed are supplied by external entities and not by the landlord. The effect of the subsection is to prevent the landlord interfering with something that is being provided to the premises by an external entity.
If the landlord refused to give the tenant a password to access the landlord’s internet modem, this does not amount to a breach of the RTA.
This claim is not proved.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Non-publication
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant seeks non-publication. She has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I order non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774800 — Exemplary damages at 3 Miami Avenue, Surfdale, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774800 — Exemplary damages at 3 Miami Avenue, Surfdale, Waiheke Island 1081

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