What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4795678 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4795678?

Compensation: Moving Costs: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Costs: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795678?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10449755-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4795678 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4795678?

Compensation: Moving Costs: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Costs: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795678?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10449755-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Haines Place, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4795678 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795678 — net $4,770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Fail to lodge bond	$300.00	Fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Wrongful termination	$2,500.00	Wrongful termination
Exemplary damages: Fail to meet heating standard	$1,000.00	Fail to meet heating standard
Compensation: Moving costs	$300.00	Moving costs
Compensation: Rent costs	$650.00	Rent costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,770.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Jeonghan Lim must pay [The tenant/s] $4,770.44 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. They were assisted by an interpreter. The Premises
The premises are part of a property also occupied by the landlord. They comprise a self-contained 2-bedroom flat in the downstairs area of the property, next to the garage, with its’ own entry.
There is a locked door between the main entrance foyer of the property and the flat occupied by the tenants. There is no dispute that the areas of the property occupied by each of the parties were distinct and self-contained. The landlord and tenants each exclusively occupied their own areas of the property. No facilities were shared.
The tenants claim that these were unlawful premises as defined in s.78A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) because they “....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)”
The tenants have provided a copy of the Quotable Value report for the premises which refers to the property as a single unit.
The landlord has provided a copy of the Master Builders’ warranty from construction of the property. Plans were also provided which suggest that 2 bedrooms, a lounge and bathroom in the downstairs of the property were part of the consented plans. The landlord added the cooktop and oven.
The premises appear quite adequate for residential occupation.
Neither party has provided evidence from the Council about the consented use of the property.
Insufficient evidence has been provided to prove whether the premises were legally able to be rented to a separate household.
If, as seems most likely, the downstairs flat was able to be occupied for residential purposes as a secondary unit to the main dwelling, that of itself would not mean that these were unlawful premises (see Exclusive Estates Ltd v Hoffman 1 ) The Agreement
The premises were occupied by the landlord’s daughter. They were then occupied for a short period by friends who were building a house. It was then rented to the tenants.
The tenants’ evidence is that they presented the landlord with a standard form of residential tenancy agreement, but the landlord preferred to use his own agreement which he considered more suitable for a furnished “granny flat” rental, as he saw it.
The agreement signed by the parties provides that: a.rent of $450.000 per week would be paid; 1 [2023] NZHC 1878 [19 July 2023] b.water, power and internet were provided in the rent; c.“High electric power appliances would be refrained for each other”; d. minimum rental period was 6 months; and e.“3 weeks prior notice shall be applied for all movements”
The landlord was unable to explain a basis on which he saw this “granny flat” rental as distinct from other residential tenancies, or why he chose not to use the Tenancy Services form of agreement suggested by the tenants.
It is not contended by the landlord that the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act do not apply or that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the tenants’ claims. It seems clear to me that the parties were landlord and tenant under a residential tenancy to which the RTA applies. Bond
A bond of $1,350.00 was paid by the tenants, which the landlord retained. He repaid the bond to them when the tenancy ended. In the meantime, it was not held in any secure or separate way but was intermingled with the landlord’s other funds.
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.
By not lodging the tenants’ bond, the landlord has 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.
In considering whether the unlawful act was intentional, it is the act itself (not lodging the bond) that must be intentional, not an intention to act unlawfully.
I consider that the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond resulted from ignorance of his obligations as a landlord. I take into account that the bond was returned to the tenants, but also that it was not secured in any way until then.
The tenants have suffered no direct loss as a result of the landlord’s breach.
The public interest requires that persons with the responsibilities of a landlord, who are paid rent to meet those responsibilities, must be aware of and comply with the obligations that puts on them.
I consider a modest award of exemplary damages would be just for this breach. Heating
It is not disputed that the premises were not provided with any form of heating.
The Healthy Homes heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
Under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, these premises would need to have been compliant 120 days after the start of the tenancy.
The landlord breached this obligation and by doing so committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In weighing the s.109(3) considerations referred to above, I note that the tenants’ say that they bought an electric heater but that they were concerned about using it very much because of the agreement that said they should refrain from using high electric power appliances. That is understandable.
It has been a requirement form many years that landlords must provide residential premises with a form of heating. The landlord’s failure to recognise his obligations as a landlord under the RTA also means that a good many other obligations owed to the tenants regarding the provision of information about the state of the premises and his insurance were also breached (see s.13A).
I accept that the premises were quite newly built, to code, and the tenants have not raised other concerns about the habitability of the premises.
A consider that a modest award of exemplary damages, against the maximum of $7,200.00, would be just. Termination of the Tenancy
On 6 December 2023 the landlord txt the tenants: “Hello, I inform you that due to a cold, I cannot meet in person. This text serves as my notice to terminate the tenancy with a three-week period starting from tomorrow’s date (December 6 th )”
The tenants began looking for other accommodation but struggled to find anything over the Christmas period. They informed the landlord of their difficulty and ultimately moved out on 27 January 2024. The new accommodation was at a weekly rent of $525.00 per week.
The tenants claim that the notice of termination as unlawful and that they should also be compensated for their moving costs and for the higher rent they had to pay in their new rental.
The landlord’s evidence is that his brother had resigned from his job in Korea and asked if he could come over and stay with the landlord for a while. The landlord says he gave 3 weeks termination notice to the tenants for that reason, in accordance with the agreement. He says that when it became apparent that the tenants could not move out as early as they had been asked to, his brother had to change plans and did not come to stay. The landlord then readvertised the premises for rent.
There is a dispute about whether that advertisement was first placed on 27 January 2024 as the tenants say, or 23 February 2024 as the landlord says. Nothing in my decision hinges on that.
The notice given to the tenants was based on improper grounds. Under s.51(1)(a), a landlord can end a periodic tenancy on 63 days’ notice if, “...the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.”
It was not intended that the landlord’s brother occupy the premises as his principal place for residence, but as a place to stay during a holiday visit. That was not a lawful reason to end the tenancy.
Even if the landlord had been entitled to end the tenancy by notice, for that reason, the notice the tenants were given was far short of the 63 days’ they would have been entitled to.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so. Again, the landlord’s failure to be aware of his legal responsibilities does not excuse the breach, which was at the tenants’ expense.
Breaching that obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act by giving unlawful notice. Again, looking at the s.109(3) criteria, I accept that the parties had signed an agreement allowing for 3 weeks’ notice to be given. However, s.11(3) RTA makes it clear that such an agreement, contrary to the tenants’ rights under the RTA, is of no effect.
The impact on the tenants of having to try and find alternative accommodation at very short notice at that time of year, was considerable.
I take into account that the landlord accommodated the tenants’ inability to find other accommodation and did not seek to enforce the notice of termination (not that he could have).
I accept too that the landlord genuinely believed that in terms of the parties’ agreement he was entitled to give the notice he gave. The public interest however again requires recognition of the tenants having borne the consequences of the landlord’s failure to make himself aware of his legal obligations.
Weighing those factors, I consider an exemplary damages award of $2,500.00 to be just. Moving costs 49The tenant’s moved themselves with the help of a friend who was paid $300.00 for his time.
While moving costs would necessarily have been incurred by the tenants when they did move from the premises anyway, I find that the landlord’s unlawful notice put undue pressure on them, which is likely to have contributed to those costs, which they also incurred sooner than they otherwise would have.
I find that a loss caused by the landlord’s breach is proved, for which the landlord should pay a contribution. Rent Compensation
The tenants’ evidence, which I accept, is that their new rent is $525.00 per week, $75.00 per week more than the rent paid for their tenancy of these premises. They seek compensation.
I find that the increased rent cost incurred by the tenants is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the landlord’s wrongful termination of their tenancy.
The tenants had been in the tenancy for a year. The landlord would therefore have been entitled to raise the rent (see s.24(1)). The new tenancy for these premises was at a rent of $500.00 per week.
The tenants were entitled to expect that their tenancy would continue, without unlawful termination. They were not entitled to expect that the landlord would not exercise his right to increase the rent.
There is no evidence proving how long the tenants were otherwise likely to have remained in this tenancy, without it being ended either by them or, lawfully, by the landlord.
I use a projected continuation of the tenancy, but for the wrongful termination, of 6 months. I find the proved loss to be $25.00 per week (rent for the new tenancy $525.00pw, less the new rent for these premises $500.00pw) x 6 months.
Because [The tenant/s] have succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795678 — net $4,770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Fail to lodge bond	$300.00	Fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Wrongful termination	$2,500.00	Wrongful termination
Exemplary damages: Fail to meet heating standard	$1,000.00	Fail to meet heating standard
Compensation: Moving costs	$300.00	Moving costs
Compensation: Rent costs	$650.00	Rent costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,770.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Jeonghan Lim must pay [The tenant/s] $4,770.44 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. They were assisted by an interpreter. The Premises
The premises are part of a property also occupied by the landlord. They comprise a self-contained 2-bedroom flat in the downstairs area of the property, next to the garage, with its’ own entry.
There is a locked door between the main entrance foyer of the property and the flat occupied by the tenants. There is no dispute that the areas of the property occupied by each of the parties were distinct and self-contained. The landlord and tenants each exclusively occupied their own areas of the property. No facilities were shared.
The tenants claim that these were unlawful premises as defined in s.78A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) because they “....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)”
The tenants have provided a copy of the Quotable Value report for the premises which refers to the property as a single unit.
The landlord has provided a copy of the Master Builders’ warranty from construction of the property. Plans were also provided which suggest that 2 bedrooms, a lounge and bathroom in the downstairs of the property were part of the consented plans. The landlord added the cooktop and oven.
The premises appear quite adequate for residential occupation.
Neither party has provided evidence from the Council about the consented use of the property.
Insufficient evidence has been provided to prove whether the premises were legally able to be rented to a separate household.
If, as seems most likely, the downstairs flat was able to be occupied for residential purposes as a secondary unit to the main dwelling, that of itself would not mean that these were unlawful premises (see Exclusive Estates Ltd v Hoffman 1 ) The Agreement
The premises were occupied by the landlord’s daughter. They were then occupied for a short period by friends who were building a house. It was then rented to the tenants.
The tenants’ evidence is that they presented the landlord with a standard form of residential tenancy agreement, but the landlord preferred to use his own agreement which he considered more suitable for a furnished “granny flat” rental, as he saw it.
The agreement signed by the parties provides that: a.rent of $450.000 per week would be paid; 1 [2023] NZHC 1878 [19 July 2023] b.water, power and internet were provided in the rent; c.“High electric power appliances would be refrained for each other”; d. minimum rental period was 6 months; and e.“3 weeks prior notice shall be applied for all movements”
The landlord was unable to explain a basis on which he saw this “granny flat” rental as distinct from other residential tenancies, or why he chose not to use the Tenancy Services form of agreement suggested by the tenants.
It is not contended by the landlord that the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act do not apply or that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the tenants’ claims. It seems clear to me that the parties were landlord and tenant under a residential tenancy to which the RTA applies. Bond
A bond of $1,350.00 was paid by the tenants, which the landlord retained. He repaid the bond to them when the tenancy ended. In the meantime, it was not held in any secure or separate way but was intermingled with the landlord’s other funds.
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.
By not lodging the tenants’ bond, the landlord has 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.
In considering whether the unlawful act was intentional, it is the act itself (not lodging the bond) that must be intentional, not an intention to act unlawfully.
I consider that the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond resulted from ignorance of his obligations as a landlord. I take into account that the bond was returned to the tenants, but also that it was not secured in any way until then.
The tenants have suffered no direct loss as a result of the landlord’s breach.
The public interest requires that persons with the responsibilities of a landlord, who are paid rent to meet those responsibilities, must be aware of and comply with the obligations that puts on them.
I consider a modest award of exemplary damages would be just for this breach. Heating
It is not disputed that the premises were not provided with any form of heating.
The Healthy Homes heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
Under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, these premises would need to have been compliant 120 days after the start of the tenancy.
The landlord breached this obligation and by doing so committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In weighing the s.109(3) considerations referred to above, I note that the tenants’ say that they bought an electric heater but that they were concerned about using it very much because of the agreement that said they should refrain from using high electric power appliances. That is understandable.
It has been a requirement form many years that landlords must provide residential premises with a form of heating. The landlord’s failure to recognise his obligations as a landlord under the RTA also means that a good many other obligations owed to the tenants regarding the provision of information about the state of the premises and his insurance were also breached (see s.13A).
I accept that the premises were quite newly built, to code, and the tenants have not raised other concerns about the habitability of the premises.
A consider that a modest award of exemplary damages, against the maximum of $7,200.00, would be just. Termination of the Tenancy
On 6 December 2023 the landlord txt the tenants: “Hello, I inform you that due to a cold, I cannot meet in person. This text serves as my notice to terminate the tenancy with a three-week period starting from tomorrow’s date (December 6 th )”
The tenants began looking for other accommodation but struggled to find anything over the Christmas period. They informed the landlord of their difficulty and ultimately moved out on 27 January 2024. The new accommodation was at a weekly rent of $525.00 per week.
The tenants claim that the notice of termination as unlawful and that they should also be compensated for their moving costs and for the higher rent they had to pay in their new rental.
The landlord’s evidence is that his brother had resigned from his job in Korea and asked if he could come over and stay with the landlord for a while. The landlord says he gave 3 weeks termination notice to the tenants for that reason, in accordance with the agreement. He says that when it became apparent that the tenants could not move out as early as they had been asked to, his brother had to change plans and did not come to stay. The landlord then readvertised the premises for rent.
There is a dispute about whether that advertisement was first placed on 27 January 2024 as the tenants say, or 23 February 2024 as the landlord says. Nothing in my decision hinges on that.
The notice given to the tenants was based on improper grounds. Under s.51(1)(a), a landlord can end a periodic tenancy on 63 days’ notice if, “...the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.”
It was not intended that the landlord’s brother occupy the premises as his principal place for residence, but as a place to stay during a holiday visit. That was not a lawful reason to end the tenancy.
Even if the landlord had been entitled to end the tenancy by notice, for that reason, the notice the tenants were given was far short of the 63 days’ they would have been entitled to.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so. Again, the landlord’s failure to be aware of his legal responsibilities does not excuse the breach, which was at the tenants’ expense.
Breaching that obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act by giving unlawful notice. Again, looking at the s.109(3) criteria, I accept that the parties had signed an agreement allowing for 3 weeks’ notice to be given. However, s.11(3) RTA makes it clear that such an agreement, contrary to the tenants’ rights under the RTA, is of no effect.
The impact on the tenants of having to try and find alternative accommodation at very short notice at that time of year, was considerable.
I take into account that the landlord accommodated the tenants’ inability to find other accommodation and did not seek to enforce the notice of termination (not that he could have).
I accept too that the landlord genuinely believed that in terms of the parties’ agreement he was entitled to give the notice he gave. The public interest however again requires recognition of the tenants having borne the consequences of the landlord’s failure to make himself aware of his legal obligations.
Weighing those factors, I consider an exemplary damages award of $2,500.00 to be just. Moving costs 49The tenant’s moved themselves with the help of a friend who was paid $300.00 for his time.
While moving costs would necessarily have been incurred by the tenants when they did move from the premises anyway, I find that the landlord’s unlawful notice put undue pressure on them, which is likely to have contributed to those costs, which they also incurred sooner than they otherwise would have.
I find that a loss caused by the landlord’s breach is proved, for which the landlord should pay a contribution. Rent Compensation
The tenants’ evidence, which I accept, is that their new rent is $525.00 per week, $75.00 per week more than the rent paid for their tenancy of these premises. They seek compensation.
I find that the increased rent cost incurred by the tenants is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the landlord’s wrongful termination of their tenancy.
The tenants had been in the tenancy for a year. The landlord would therefore have been entitled to raise the rent (see s.24(1)). The new tenancy for these premises was at a rent of $500.00 per week.
The tenants were entitled to expect that their tenancy would continue, without unlawful termination. They were not entitled to expect that the landlord would not exercise his right to increase the rent.
There is no evidence proving how long the tenants were otherwise likely to have remained in this tenancy, without it being ended either by them or, lawfully, by the landlord.
I use a projected continuation of the tenancy, but for the wrongful termination, of 6 months. I find the proved loss to be $25.00 per week (rent for the new tenancy $525.00pw, less the new rent for these premises $500.00pw) x 6 months.
Because [The tenant/s] have succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795678 — Exemplary damages at 4 Haines Place, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795678 — Exemplary damages at 4 Haines Place, Orewa, Orewa 0931

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