What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4803717 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 4803717?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803717?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10399412-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4803717 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 4803717?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803717?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10399412-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4803717 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4803717 — net $170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$150.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee	$20.44	40. I will award $150.00.
Net award	$170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$170.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 11 May 2018. [The tenant/s] has given notice to terminate the tenancy, and it will end on 8 June 2024.
The tenant’s application raises three issues: a. A rent increase that took effect on 10 April 2024, increasing the rent from $350.00 to $420.00 per week. [The tenant/s] argues that $420.00 exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. b. Failure to maintain (replace) the stove. c. An unlawful entry on 31 January 2024.
The hearing took place on 29 May 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Rent
The rent was $300.00 per week at the start of the tenancy in 2018.
In 2022, the landlord increased the rent to $350.00 per week.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord gave notice to increase the rent from $350.00 to $420.00 per week from 27 March 2024.
The rent payable for a tenancy may be increased provided that 1 : a. The landlord gives the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and b. The notice specifies the amount of the increase and the day upon which the increase shall become payable, and that date is no sooner than 60 days after the date of the notice; and c. The increase does not occur within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy or within 12 months of the last increase.
The landlord’s notice met those requirements, except for the requirement of 60 days’ notice.
[The tenant/s] identified the error in the calculation of the notice period, and the landlords agreed that the increase would not take effect until 10 April 2024.
With that alteration, the rent increase was formally valid and effective.
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent for a property “on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount” 2 .
[The tenant/s] argued that rent of $420.00 is excessive having regard to: a. The condition of the premises, in particular that it is not compliant with the healthy homes standards. b. The rent charged on comparable one-bedroom properties in the area. c. The ‘median rent’ for properties in [City].
Mr & Mrs Cochrane obtained three rental appraisals from local property managers. 1 Section 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 25(1) RTA
The first was from [Property management company 1] ([Property manager 1]). [Property manager 1] was involved with this property in 2018, when it was managed by [Property management company 4]. She also provided a rent appraisal in 2022. [Property manager 1]’s appraisal is dated 18 January 2024. She assesses the market rent at $460 - $480 per week.
The other appraisals are: a. [Property management company 2] ([Property manager 2]). The assessment is dated 7 March 2024. [Property manager 2] assesses the market rent at $490 - $510 per week. b. [Property management company 3] ([Property manager 3]). The assessment is dated 6 March 2024. [Property manager 3] assesses the market rent at $475 - $495 per week.
[The tenant/s] challenged the [Property management company 1] assessment on the grounds that: a. Mrs Cochrane works for [Property management company 1] and therefore there is a conflict of interest. b. [Property manager 1] has not seen the property since 2018.
The [Property management company 2] and [Property management company 3] reports are ‘desktop appraisals’. Neither [Property manager 2] nor [Property manager 3] viewed the property.
My findings are: a. [Property manager 1], [Property manager 2], and [Property manager 3] are experienced property managers, and all three are capable of giving an informed assessment of the market rent of properties in the [City] area. b. I do not accept that [Property manager 1]’s appraisal would have been influenced by the fact that Mrs Cochrane is a work colleague. c. The valuations were given on the basis that the property is currently not compliant with the healthy homes standards. This is specifically noted in the [Property management company 3] valuation, and [Property manager 1] is aware of the healthy homes status of the property. d. The evidence that [The tenant/s] has provided of comparable one-bedroom properties is too wide ranging to be compelling evidence of the market value of this property. [The tenant/s] provided copies of listings of properties in [Town 1], [Suburb 2], and [Town 2]. She provided two listings of one-bedroom properties in [Suburb 1] – one at $350 per week and one at $390. This evidence is not sufficient to establish a persuasive comparison. e. [The tenant/s]’ evidence of 2 and 3-bedroom properties, some in [Suburb 1] but others in different suburbs of [City] and other parts of [Region], does not assist with the assessment of the market value of this 1-bedroom property.
The evidence provided to me does not establish that the rent of $420.00 exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. Oven
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. The oven was not clean when her tenancy began. b. It is a cheap model. c. The oven is rusting. d. Air comes forcefully out of the oven when the doors are closed. This happens even when she is using the oven in ‘conventional’ rather than ‘fan’ mode. e. Mr Cochrane changed the seals in 2022, but this problem persisted.
[The tenant/s] provided a photograph showing some rust on the bottom of the oven. The copy that I have is black and white and it is difficult to identify the extent of rust. There is no evidence to indicate that the rust affects the safety or functionality of the oven.
[The tenant/s] also provided a photograph showing her pulling the new seals away from the inside of the oven.
Mr Cochrane submitted that: a. The oven was purchased new in 2018. b. The oven is in good working order. c. The air blowing from above the door is a normal function in a wall oven. It is a cooling (safety) fan. Mr Cochrane provided information from the manufacturer in support of this. d. The seals did not need to be replaced in 2022, but he did so because [The tenant/s] expressed concerns about the oven. e. The seals are simply pushed into place, so they can be pulled out by hand.
My findings are that: a. It is not proven that the air blowing from the oven during use is a fault / defect. b. It is not proven that the seals are faulty or were improperly installed. c. The presence of some rust is consistent with the age of the oven, and the evidence provided to me does not indicate that it necessitates replacement of the oven.
[The tenant/s] wanted to emphasise that she has done her best to keep the oven in a clean and tidy condition. She does not want the landlord to withhold the bond because of the condition of the oven.
Ovens have a usual ‘life expectancy’ of 8-14 years in tenanted properties, depending on the type and quality of the oven.
There will be a final inspection on 8 June. If there is any dispute about how the bond is to be distributed, either party may bring an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Unlawful entry
On 31 January 2024 Mr Cochrane came to the property to hand deliver a copy of the notice of rent increase and the [Property management company 1] rental appraisal.
[The tenant/s] was away at the time.
The property has a letterbox, but Mr Cochrane submitted that he wasn’t sure which letterbox belonged to this property.
[The tenant/s] had left the back door unlocked, so a friend could get in.
Mr Cochrane submitted that he noticed that the back door open (not just unlocked). He dropped the letter inside the door. He then messaged [The tenant/s] to let her know that the door was open and to ask whether she wanted him to secure it.
Landlords may only enter the premises in limited circumstances 3 .
There are various ways that a landlord can deliver a notice or document to a tenant. There is no legal power for a landlord to enter the premises for the purpose of delivering a notice of document.
Mr Cochrane’s entry on 31 January 2024 was unlawful.
The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1500.00 if a landlord unlawfully enters the premises.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to 4 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and 3 Section 48 RTA 4 Section 109 RTA b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. Mr Cochrane was at the premises for legitimate landlord purposes. b. The extent of the unlawful entry was minimal. c. I accept that Mr Cochrane would not have crossed the threshold at all if the back door had been closed. d. The incident caused unnecessary distress and concern for [The tenant/s] at a difficult time.
Having regard to these factors, my finding is that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages at the low end of the scale.
I will award $150.00. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in her application and I will award her the filing fee of $20.44 5 .
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
The Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party that has “wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings 6 . [The tenant/s] has not been wholly or substantially successful in this instance.
The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 7 .
In this instance: a. [The tenant/s] abandoned / withdrew many of the issues raised in her written submission. b. The issues that [The tenant/s] raised were genuine. c. This decision addresses routine matters of limited public interest. d. There is a risk of an unfair detriment to [The tenant/s] if name suppression is not granted.
Therefore, the request for name suppression is granted. 5 Section 102(4)(b) RTA 6 Section 95A(1) RTA 7 Section 95A(2) RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4803717 — net $170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$150.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee	$20.44	40. I will award $150.00.
Net award	$170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$170.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 11 May 2018. [The tenant/s] has given notice to terminate the tenancy, and it will end on 8 June 2024.
The tenant’s application raises three issues: a. A rent increase that took effect on 10 April 2024, increasing the rent from $350.00 to $420.00 per week. [The tenant/s] argues that $420.00 exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. b. Failure to maintain (replace) the stove. c. An unlawful entry on 31 January 2024.
The hearing took place on 29 May 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Rent
The rent was $300.00 per week at the start of the tenancy in 2018.
In 2022, the landlord increased the rent to $350.00 per week.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord gave notice to increase the rent from $350.00 to $420.00 per week from 27 March 2024.
The rent payable for a tenancy may be increased provided that 1 : a. The landlord gives the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and b. The notice specifies the amount of the increase and the day upon which the increase shall become payable, and that date is no sooner than 60 days after the date of the notice; and c. The increase does not occur within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy or within 12 months of the last increase.
The landlord’s notice met those requirements, except for the requirement of 60 days’ notice.
[The tenant/s] identified the error in the calculation of the notice period, and the landlords agreed that the increase would not take effect until 10 April 2024.
With that alteration, the rent increase was formally valid and effective.
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent for a property “on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount” 2 .
[The tenant/s] argued that rent of $420.00 is excessive having regard to: a. The condition of the premises, in particular that it is not compliant with the healthy homes standards. b. The rent charged on comparable one-bedroom properties in the area. c. The ‘median rent’ for properties in [City].
Mr & Mrs Cochrane obtained three rental appraisals from local property managers. 1 Section 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 25(1) RTA
The first was from [Property management company 1] ([Property manager 1]). [Property manager 1] was involved with this property in 2018, when it was managed by [Property management company 4]. She also provided a rent appraisal in 2022. [Property manager 1]’s appraisal is dated 18 January 2024. She assesses the market rent at $460 - $480 per week.
The other appraisals are: a. [Property management company 2] ([Property manager 2]). The assessment is dated 7 March 2024. [Property manager 2] assesses the market rent at $490 - $510 per week. b. [Property management company 3] ([Property manager 3]). The assessment is dated 6 March 2024. [Property manager 3] assesses the market rent at $475 - $495 per week.
[The tenant/s] challenged the [Property management company 1] assessment on the grounds that: a. Mrs Cochrane works for [Property management company 1] and therefore there is a conflict of interest. b. [Property manager 1] has not seen the property since 2018.
The [Property management company 2] and [Property management company 3] reports are ‘desktop appraisals’. Neither [Property manager 2] nor [Property manager 3] viewed the property.
My findings are: a. [Property manager 1], [Property manager 2], and [Property manager 3] are experienced property managers, and all three are capable of giving an informed assessment of the market rent of properties in the [City] area. b. I do not accept that [Property manager 1]’s appraisal would have been influenced by the fact that Mrs Cochrane is a work colleague. c. The valuations were given on the basis that the property is currently not compliant with the healthy homes standards. This is specifically noted in the [Property management company 3] valuation, and [Property manager 1] is aware of the healthy homes status of the property. d. The evidence that [The tenant/s] has provided of comparable one-bedroom properties is too wide ranging to be compelling evidence of the market value of this property. [The tenant/s] provided copies of listings of properties in [Town 1], [Suburb 2], and [Town 2]. She provided two listings of one-bedroom properties in [Suburb 1] – one at $350 per week and one at $390. This evidence is not sufficient to establish a persuasive comparison. e. [The tenant/s]’ evidence of 2 and 3-bedroom properties, some in [Suburb 1] but others in different suburbs of [City] and other parts of [Region], does not assist with the assessment of the market value of this 1-bedroom property.
The evidence provided to me does not establish that the rent of $420.00 exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. Oven
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. The oven was not clean when her tenancy began. b. It is a cheap model. c. The oven is rusting. d. Air comes forcefully out of the oven when the doors are closed. This happens even when she is using the oven in ‘conventional’ rather than ‘fan’ mode. e. Mr Cochrane changed the seals in 2022, but this problem persisted.
[The tenant/s] provided a photograph showing some rust on the bottom of the oven. The copy that I have is black and white and it is difficult to identify the extent of rust. There is no evidence to indicate that the rust affects the safety or functionality of the oven.
[The tenant/s] also provided a photograph showing her pulling the new seals away from the inside of the oven.
Mr Cochrane submitted that: a. The oven was purchased new in 2018. b. The oven is in good working order. c. The air blowing from above the door is a normal function in a wall oven. It is a cooling (safety) fan. Mr Cochrane provided information from the manufacturer in support of this. d. The seals did not need to be replaced in 2022, but he did so because [The tenant/s] expressed concerns about the oven. e. The seals are simply pushed into place, so they can be pulled out by hand.
My findings are that: a. It is not proven that the air blowing from the oven during use is a fault / defect. b. It is not proven that the seals are faulty or were improperly installed. c. The presence of some rust is consistent with the age of the oven, and the evidence provided to me does not indicate that it necessitates replacement of the oven.
[The tenant/s] wanted to emphasise that she has done her best to keep the oven in a clean and tidy condition. She does not want the landlord to withhold the bond because of the condition of the oven.
Ovens have a usual ‘life expectancy’ of 8-14 years in tenanted properties, depending on the type and quality of the oven.
There will be a final inspection on 8 June. If there is any dispute about how the bond is to be distributed, either party may bring an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Unlawful entry
On 31 January 2024 Mr Cochrane came to the property to hand deliver a copy of the notice of rent increase and the [Property management company 1] rental appraisal.
[The tenant/s] was away at the time.
The property has a letterbox, but Mr Cochrane submitted that he wasn’t sure which letterbox belonged to this property.
[The tenant/s] had left the back door unlocked, so a friend could get in.
Mr Cochrane submitted that he noticed that the back door open (not just unlocked). He dropped the letter inside the door. He then messaged [The tenant/s] to let her know that the door was open and to ask whether she wanted him to secure it.
Landlords may only enter the premises in limited circumstances 3 .
There are various ways that a landlord can deliver a notice or document to a tenant. There is no legal power for a landlord to enter the premises for the purpose of delivering a notice of document.
Mr Cochrane’s entry on 31 January 2024 was unlawful.
The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1500.00 if a landlord unlawfully enters the premises.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to 4 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and 3 Section 48 RTA 4 Section 109 RTA b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. Mr Cochrane was at the premises for legitimate landlord purposes. b. The extent of the unlawful entry was minimal. c. I accept that Mr Cochrane would not have crossed the threshold at all if the back door had been closed. d. The incident caused unnecessary distress and concern for [The tenant/s] at a difficult time.
Having regard to these factors, my finding is that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages at the low end of the scale.
I will award $150.00. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in her application and I will award her the filing fee of $20.44 5 .
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
The Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party that has “wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings 6 . [The tenant/s] has not been wholly or substantially successful in this instance.
The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 7 .
In this instance: a. [The tenant/s] abandoned / withdrew many of the issues raised in her written submission. b. The issues that [The tenant/s] raised were genuine. c. This decision addresses routine matters of limited public interest. d. There is a risk of an unfair detriment to [The tenant/s] if name suppression is not granted.
Therefore, the request for name suppression is granted. 5 Section 102(4)(b) RTA 6 Section 95A(1) RTA 7 Section 95A(2) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803717 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803717 — Exemplary damages

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