What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4798455 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4798455?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4798455?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4798455?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10784959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4798455 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4798455?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4798455?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4798455?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10784959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4798455 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was a rehearing of part of the tenant’s application by the landlord. There is no tenant application for rehearing.
The landlord raised 3 issues in their application for rehearing. First, whether exemplary damages could be awarded given the time restriction contained in section 109(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Second, whether a delay by the tenant returning chattels was an unlawful act by the tenant. Third, whether the landlord would be eligible for name suppression were the rehearing application to succeed.
The adjudicator’s decision granting the rehearing refers to the section 109(2)(b) issue only. A rehearing of the whole of the tenant’s claim against the landlord was not granted.
That accords with the legal position that a rehearing is not granted simply because a party disagrees with the order, nor as an opportunity to have another chance to argue their case. A rehearing is granted to remedy a procedural error, in this case, the failure to consider a statutory provision relevant to exemplary damages. Exemplary damages
The tenant sought exemplary damages because the landlord failed to provide her with a signed tenancy agreement before the tenancy started. The tenant said she received a tenancy agreement by email on 31 May 2021 (the tenancy started on 5 June 2021) which she signed and returned to the landlord, but she never received the agreement signed by the landlord.
Section 13 RTA provides: Tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed (1) The landlord must ensure that the tenancy agreement is in writing. (2) The landlord must, before the tenancy commences,— (a) sign the tenancy agreement; and (b) provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant (whether or not the tenant has signed it). (3) The tenant must sign the tenancy agreement. (4) A landlord who fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2)— (a) commits an unlawful act; and (b) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
Although the landlord provided the tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced, a signed copy was not provided to the tenant.
The landlord’s failure to provide a signed copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant was an unlawful act.
Section 109 RTA deals with unlawful acts. 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) RTA.
Section 109(2)(b) RTA provides: Unlawful acts (2) A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i) an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii) a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b) 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
The tenant’s application is dated 15 January 2024. That is about 31 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is therefore time-barred. It is dismissed.
Had the Tribunal been required to consider whether the criteria for awarding exemplary damages were met it probably would have decided that the landlord’s action was negligent rather than intentional. The landlord provided the tenancy agreement for the tenant to sign, which she did. The failure was to then return the copy signed by the landlord. Failure to return or delay in returning chattels
The landlord has raised an issue of whether a failure or delay by a tenant to return chattels is an unlawful act.
Again, the Tribunal need not determine this issue afresh, as it seems from the parties’ evidence that chattels were returned late, save possibly for a mattress.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. The relevant part is section 40(1)(e)(v) which states: Tenant’s responsibilities (1) The tenant shall— (e ) on the termination of the tenancy - (v) leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
Even if the tenant failed to return all chattels provided by the landlord, which again I do not need to decide, the failure (or delay) does not constitute an unlawful act. Why? Because section 40(3A) RTA which sets out the unlawful acts under section 40 RTA does not include a breach of section 40(1)(e)(v).
Without a breach being declared an unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. I have addressed that simply to answer the landlord’s query. Name suppression
The tenant was originally granted name suppression based on her application being successful. Even though this order has dismissed her application for exemplary damages, the tenant was still successful in other aspects and as a result has had her bond refunded. I have therefore granted the tenant name suppression again.
The landlord has successfully defended the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages so is eligible for an order for name suppression – see section 95A RTA.
As both applications were partly successful (the tenant’s at the first hearing, the landlord’s on rehearing now) I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was a rehearing of part of the tenant’s application by the landlord. There is no tenant application for rehearing.
The landlord raised 3 issues in their application for rehearing. First, whether exemplary damages could be awarded given the time restriction contained in section 109(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Second, whether a delay by the tenant returning chattels was an unlawful act by the tenant. Third, whether the landlord would be eligible for name suppression were the rehearing application to succeed.
The adjudicator’s decision granting the rehearing refers to the section 109(2)(b) issue only. A rehearing of the whole of the tenant’s claim against the landlord was not granted.
That accords with the legal position that a rehearing is not granted simply because a party disagrees with the order, nor as an opportunity to have another chance to argue their case. A rehearing is granted to remedy a procedural error, in this case, the failure to consider a statutory provision relevant to exemplary damages. Exemplary damages
The tenant sought exemplary damages because the landlord failed to provide her with a signed tenancy agreement before the tenancy started. The tenant said she received a tenancy agreement by email on 31 May 2021 (the tenancy started on 5 June 2021) which she signed and returned to the landlord, but she never received the agreement signed by the landlord.
Section 13 RTA provides: Tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed (1) The landlord must ensure that the tenancy agreement is in writing. (2) The landlord must, before the tenancy commences,— (a) sign the tenancy agreement; and (b) provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant (whether or not the tenant has signed it). (3) The tenant must sign the tenancy agreement. (4) A landlord who fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2)— (a) commits an unlawful act; and (b) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
Although the landlord provided the tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced, a signed copy was not provided to the tenant.
The landlord’s failure to provide a signed copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant was an unlawful act.
Section 109 RTA deals with unlawful acts. 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) RTA.
Section 109(2)(b) RTA provides: Unlawful acts (2) A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i) an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii) a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b) 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
The tenant’s application is dated 15 January 2024. That is about 31 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is therefore time-barred. It is dismissed.
Had the Tribunal been required to consider whether the criteria for awarding exemplary damages were met it probably would have decided that the landlord’s action was negligent rather than intentional. The landlord provided the tenancy agreement for the tenant to sign, which she did. The failure was to then return the copy signed by the landlord. Failure to return or delay in returning chattels
The landlord has raised an issue of whether a failure or delay by a tenant to return chattels is an unlawful act.
Again, the Tribunal need not determine this issue afresh, as it seems from the parties’ evidence that chattels were returned late, save possibly for a mattress.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. The relevant part is section 40(1)(e)(v) which states: Tenant’s responsibilities (1) The tenant shall— (e ) on the termination of the tenancy - (v) leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
Even if the tenant failed to return all chattels provided by the landlord, which again I do not need to decide, the failure (or delay) does not constitute an unlawful act. Why? Because section 40(3A) RTA which sets out the unlawful acts under section 40 RTA does not include a breach of section 40(1)(e)(v).
Without a breach being declared an unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. I have addressed that simply to answer the landlord’s query. Name suppression
The tenant was originally granted name suppression based on her application being successful. Even though this order has dismissed her application for exemplary damages, the tenant was still successful in other aspects and as a result has had her bond refunded. I have therefore granted the tenant name suppression again.
The landlord has successfully defended the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages so is eligible for an order for name suppression – see section 95A RTA.
As both applications were partly successful (the tenant’s at the first hearing, the landlord’s on rehearing now) I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4798455 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4798455 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions