What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786657 about?

The tribunal order states: Abhishek Gupta must pay [The tenant/s] $970.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4786657?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: removing the tenant's…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786657?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786657?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10011200-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786657 about?

The tribunal order states: Abhishek Gupta must pay [The tenant/s] $970.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4786657?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: removing the tenant's…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786657?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786657?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10011200-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

67 Boyce Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786657 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4786657 — net $970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: late lodgment of bond	$500.00	late lodgment of bond
Compensation: removing the tenant's belongings	$300.00	removing the tenant's belongings
Compensation: general damages	$150.00	general damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$970.44

Order

Abhishek Gupta must pay [The tenant/s] $970.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] 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) 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 failed to lodge the bond until being directed to do so today. 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.
The bond has now been lodged after a brief adjournment of the hearing today.
The landlord says that he overlooked the bond lodgment due to “lots of things going on at the time, with new baby and new move.” The landlord however has rented out the premises for over 7 years and is an experienced landlord. The tenancy began in November 2023 with the bond paid in early November 2023; it is now the end of February 2024.
I am satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. Having regard to the landlord’s excuse, the effect of the non-lodgment of bond on the tenant and the interest of the tenant and the public interest that bonds must be lodged, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $500.00 in favour of the tenant.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has taken their goods from the storage space below the premises and left it in the open.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While the landlord had not seized the goods or tried to dispose off the goods, the landlord should not have touched and removed the tenant’s items from the storage area despite the tenant not having removed them when asked to do so. The landlord should have obtained a disposal order from the Tribunal accordingly.
The text messages between the parties show that the landlord had willingly allowed the tenant to store some items inside the storage area even though the tenancy agreement does not provide for storage space at the rumpus area for the tenant’s use.
Clause 21.3 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord uses the basement storage for their own personal use and that the landlord has access to that area anytime (for retrieval and storage access). This implies that the storage area is not included as part of the tenancy.
However, upon gradual requests by the tenant, the landlord allowed the tenant to use the storage area and on 25 November 2023, the landlord even texted to say that “I just have one key but I’ll get a duplicate key cut and give it to you. In the meanwhile I’ll come and open it for you guys.”
The texts communication indicates that the landlord had permitted the tenant to use the storage area at the initial stages of the tenancy.
In mid January 2024, the landlord started to feel inconvenienced by the tenant’s repeated request for access to the storage area. The landlord says that he is prepared to come as soon as he can but would suggest that the tenant keep only long term items in storage as its is quite hard to come over frequently to give access to the tenant.
The tenant then disagreed insisting that storage access is always available to the tenant from the onset. By this time, the tenant started insisting on a spare key being made and given to the tenant.
The parties’ dispute then escalated and came to a head on 17 January 2024 where they exchanged harsh words between themselves. The landlord then gave the tenant a deadline to remove the tenant’s items from the storage; if they are not removed by 8pm on 18 January 2024 and the landlord threatened to lock the rumpus permanently.
I consider that the landlord had set an unreasonable deadline for removal of storage items. I also consider that the landlord had acted unlawfully to touch the tenant’s items and removed them from the storage rumpus area and placed them outside into the open.
I award the tenant compensation for humiliation, stress and inconvenience for the landlord’s actions of $450.00 in total as calculated above.
That said, I do not consider that the tenant is now entitled to demand that storage access be given to them as of right. I consider that the landlord had only agreed to provide storage and access to storage out of goodwill and permission has now been duly withdrawn.
I reiterate that the tenancy agreement does not provide for storage space at the rumpus area for the tenant and the storage area is not included as part of the tenancy.
Permission willingly given can be withdrawn by the landlord, as it has occurred in this instance.
Having awarded the tenant damages and compensation for the landlord’s unreasonable removal of the tenant’s items from the storage area, I make no further orders in respect of the storage space.
The tenant is largely successful in this claim; I award the reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4786657 — net $970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: late lodgment of bond	$500.00	late lodgment of bond
Compensation: removing the tenant's belongings	$300.00	removing the tenant's belongings
Compensation: general damages	$150.00	general damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$970.44

Order

Abhishek Gupta must pay [The tenant/s] $970.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] 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) 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 failed to lodge the bond until being directed to do so today. 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.
The bond has now been lodged after a brief adjournment of the hearing today.
The landlord says that he overlooked the bond lodgment due to “lots of things going on at the time, with new baby and new move.” The landlord however has rented out the premises for over 7 years and is an experienced landlord. The tenancy began in November 2023 with the bond paid in early November 2023; it is now the end of February 2024.
I am satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. Having regard to the landlord’s excuse, the effect of the non-lodgment of bond on the tenant and the interest of the tenant and the public interest that bonds must be lodged, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $500.00 in favour of the tenant.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has taken their goods from the storage space below the premises and left it in the open.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While the landlord had not seized the goods or tried to dispose off the goods, the landlord should not have touched and removed the tenant’s items from the storage area despite the tenant not having removed them when asked to do so. The landlord should have obtained a disposal order from the Tribunal accordingly.
The text messages between the parties show that the landlord had willingly allowed the tenant to store some items inside the storage area even though the tenancy agreement does not provide for storage space at the rumpus area for the tenant’s use.
Clause 21.3 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord uses the basement storage for their own personal use and that the landlord has access to that area anytime (for retrieval and storage access). This implies that the storage area is not included as part of the tenancy.
However, upon gradual requests by the tenant, the landlord allowed the tenant to use the storage area and on 25 November 2023, the landlord even texted to say that “I just have one key but I’ll get a duplicate key cut and give it to you. In the meanwhile I’ll come and open it for you guys.”
The texts communication indicates that the landlord had permitted the tenant to use the storage area at the initial stages of the tenancy.
In mid January 2024, the landlord started to feel inconvenienced by the tenant’s repeated request for access to the storage area. The landlord says that he is prepared to come as soon as he can but would suggest that the tenant keep only long term items in storage as its is quite hard to come over frequently to give access to the tenant.
The tenant then disagreed insisting that storage access is always available to the tenant from the onset. By this time, the tenant started insisting on a spare key being made and given to the tenant.
The parties’ dispute then escalated and came to a head on 17 January 2024 where they exchanged harsh words between themselves. The landlord then gave the tenant a deadline to remove the tenant’s items from the storage; if they are not removed by 8pm on 18 January 2024 and the landlord threatened to lock the rumpus permanently.
I consider that the landlord had set an unreasonable deadline for removal of storage items. I also consider that the landlord had acted unlawfully to touch the tenant’s items and removed them from the storage rumpus area and placed them outside into the open.
I award the tenant compensation for humiliation, stress and inconvenience for the landlord’s actions of $450.00 in total as calculated above.
That said, I do not consider that the tenant is now entitled to demand that storage access be given to them as of right. I consider that the landlord had only agreed to provide storage and access to storage out of goodwill and permission has now been duly withdrawn.
I reiterate that the tenancy agreement does not provide for storage space at the rumpus area for the tenant and the storage area is not included as part of the tenancy.
Permission willingly given can be withdrawn by the landlord, as it has occurred in this instance.
Having awarded the tenant damages and compensation for the landlord’s unreasonable removal of the tenant’s items from the storage area, I make no further orders in respect of the storage space.
The tenant is largely successful in this claim; I award the reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786657 — Exemplary damages at 67 Boyce Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786657 — Exemplary damages at 67 Boyce Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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