What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4781312 about?

The tribunal order states: Property Management Wellington Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,585.44

How much money was awarded in case 4781312?

Compensation: Bond Not Lodged: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach duty re ranch s…: $765.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: unclear messages aroun…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781312?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10351317-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4781312 about?

The tribunal order states: Property Management Wellington Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,585.44

How much money was awarded in case 4781312?

Compensation: Bond Not Lodged: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach duty re ranch s…: $765.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: unclear messages aroun…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781312?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10351317-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4781312 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4781312 — net $1,585.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: breach duty re ranch slider	$765.00	breach duty re ranch slider
Compensation: bond not lodged	$400.00	bond not lodged
Compensation: unclear messages around assignment	$400.00	unclear messages around assignment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,585.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,585.44

Order

Property Management Wellington Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,585.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager Mr Cook.
This tenancy has ended. The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement from 29 January 2023 – 25 January 2024. The tenants wanted to end the fixed term tenancy early and assign the tenancy but they could not reach agreement with the landlord over this. They are concerned that the landlord made the assignment/end of tenancy process so confusing that they decided to stay until the end of the fixed term. As a consequence they paid double rent, and they want compensation. They have also claimed compensation because the bond was not lodged as required, and because a ranch slider was broken. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the landlord take too long to fix the door? • Should there I allow compensation because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days? • Did the landlord misrepresent the end of tenancy process?

Did the landlord take too long to fix the door?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45 a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. A ranch slider was broken and it took the landlord and the insurer many months for a replacement door to be installed. I accept that the delay was not entirely the landlord’s fault, however the inconvenience for the tenant – who effectively lived with a temporary bedroom wall for months - was significant. I find there was a loss of amenity and allow some compensation for the tenant renting that room. In deciding the amount I have considered his share of the rent and the delay. Should there I allow compensation because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days?
The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged 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) RTA.
This bond was paid to the landlord in January and lodged in May, which is a breach by the landlord. Usually tenants apply for exemplary damages, which are like a penalty, but these tenants have not done that this means I can only consider compensation today. Compensation is allowed for loss. It is hard to calculate loss when the tenants were not aware of any problems. The landlord submitted that any impact on the tenants was low. The tenants submitted that they were stressed as a result of the late lodgement and had concerns about how long it would take to get their bond back at the end of the tenancy. I am persuaded by the tenant’s submission and I have allowed a small amount of compensation for stress.

Did the landlord misrepresent the end of tenancy process?

The tenants are concerned that the messages and forms they got from the landlord around ending the tenancy early were misleading and not lawful. I accept there were many mistakes.
The confusion started with the tenancy agreement which has the wrong time frames in two places and is contradictory. One of the forms sent to the tenants stated they were not allowed to sublet or assign. The property manager acknowledged in the hearing this clause should also say “without consent” because the RTA states that a tenant may not assign the tenancy without the prior written consent of the landlord. See section 43B RTA.
The form about conditional approval can be read to say the $500 for an early termination had to be paid up front. This is another breach because a landlord must provide an itemised account to the tenant of any expenses incurred in respect to an assignment before charging the tenant. Incurred means after the assignment, and not before. See section 44A RTA.
Finally, the tenancy agreement wrongly stated the law because the only option available to the tenants is to end the tenancy or sign another fixed term. The default position of the tenancy becoming periodic at the end of the fixed term was therefore misrepresented.
The tenants claimed compensation for these breaches as well. They submitted that that as a consequence of the landlord’s breaches they had to pay double rent. This is because they all signed new tenancy agreements in November 2023 and were prevented from ending their fixed term tenancy sooner. The landlord submitted there was no loss.
I find the tenants’ decisions to sign new tenancy agreements was a choice they made when they knew there was no guarantee they would be able to find replacement tenants or negotiate an early end to the tenancy. This was a risk they took. For this reason there is no order for the double rent. However, the messaging from the landlord was inconsistent and incorrect in places and this caused stress and uncertainty. A small amount of compensation is allowed to reflect that. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when there are breaches of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4781312 — net $1,585.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: breach duty re ranch slider	$765.00	breach duty re ranch slider
Compensation: bond not lodged	$400.00	bond not lodged
Compensation: unclear messages around assignment	$400.00	unclear messages around assignment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,585.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,585.44

Order

Property Management Wellington Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,585.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager Mr Cook.
This tenancy has ended. The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement from 29 January 2023 – 25 January 2024. The tenants wanted to end the fixed term tenancy early and assign the tenancy but they could not reach agreement with the landlord over this. They are concerned that the landlord made the assignment/end of tenancy process so confusing that they decided to stay until the end of the fixed term. As a consequence they paid double rent, and they want compensation. They have also claimed compensation because the bond was not lodged as required, and because a ranch slider was broken. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the landlord take too long to fix the door? • Should there I allow compensation because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days? • Did the landlord misrepresent the end of tenancy process?

Did the landlord take too long to fix the door?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45 a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. A ranch slider was broken and it took the landlord and the insurer many months for a replacement door to be installed. I accept that the delay was not entirely the landlord’s fault, however the inconvenience for the tenant – who effectively lived with a temporary bedroom wall for months - was significant. I find there was a loss of amenity and allow some compensation for the tenant renting that room. In deciding the amount I have considered his share of the rent and the delay. Should there I allow compensation because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days?
The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged 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) RTA.
This bond was paid to the landlord in January and lodged in May, which is a breach by the landlord. Usually tenants apply for exemplary damages, which are like a penalty, but these tenants have not done that this means I can only consider compensation today. Compensation is allowed for loss. It is hard to calculate loss when the tenants were not aware of any problems. The landlord submitted that any impact on the tenants was low. The tenants submitted that they were stressed as a result of the late lodgement and had concerns about how long it would take to get their bond back at the end of the tenancy. I am persuaded by the tenant’s submission and I have allowed a small amount of compensation for stress.

Did the landlord misrepresent the end of tenancy process?

The tenants are concerned that the messages and forms they got from the landlord around ending the tenancy early were misleading and not lawful. I accept there were many mistakes.
The confusion started with the tenancy agreement which has the wrong time frames in two places and is contradictory. One of the forms sent to the tenants stated they were not allowed to sublet or assign. The property manager acknowledged in the hearing this clause should also say “without consent” because the RTA states that a tenant may not assign the tenancy without the prior written consent of the landlord. See section 43B RTA.
The form about conditional approval can be read to say the $500 for an early termination had to be paid up front. This is another breach because a landlord must provide an itemised account to the tenant of any expenses incurred in respect to an assignment before charging the tenant. Incurred means after the assignment, and not before. See section 44A RTA.
Finally, the tenancy agreement wrongly stated the law because the only option available to the tenants is to end the tenancy or sign another fixed term. The default position of the tenancy becoming periodic at the end of the fixed term was therefore misrepresented.
The tenants claimed compensation for these breaches as well. They submitted that that as a consequence of the landlord’s breaches they had to pay double rent. This is because they all signed new tenancy agreements in November 2023 and were prevented from ending their fixed term tenancy sooner. The landlord submitted there was no loss.
I find the tenants’ decisions to sign new tenancy agreements was a choice they made when they knew there was no guarantee they would be able to find replacement tenants or negotiate an early end to the tenancy. This was a risk they took. For this reason there is no order for the double rent. However, the messaging from the landlord was inconsistent and incorrect in places and this caused stress and uncertainty. A small amount of compensation is allowed to reflect that. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when there are breaches of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781312 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781312 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord take too long to fix the door?

Did the landlord misrepresent the end of tenancy process?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord take too long to fix the door?

Did the landlord misrepresent the end of tenancy process?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions