What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4805357 about?

The tribunal order states: Compensation for the refund of the bond of $6920.00 is to be paid to the tenant

How much money was awarded in case 4805357?

Compensation: $396.66 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund Of Bond: $6,920.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4805357?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4805357?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10707620-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4805357 about?

The tribunal order states: Compensation for the refund of the bond of $6920.00 is to be paid to the tenant

How much money was awarded in case 4805357?

Compensation: $396.66 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund Of Bond: $6,920.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4805357?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4805357?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10707620-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 24 West End Road, Herne Bay, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4805357 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4805357 — net $8,337.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: refund of bond	$6,920.00	refund of bond
Exemplary damages- Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$1,000.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for loss of utilities	$396.66	Compensation for loss of utilities
Net award	$8,337.10
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,337.10

Order

DescriptionTenant Compensation: refund of bond $6,920.00 Exemplary damages- Breach of Quiet Enjoyment $1000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Compensation for loss of utilities$396.66 Total award $8337.10 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $8337.10

Compensation for the refund of the bond of $6920.00 is to be paid to the tenant directly by the Landlord by 5.00pm on 16 July 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy for premises located at 2/24 West End Road, Herne Bay. The fixed term tenancy commenced on 24 March 2023. The weekly rental was $1975.00.
The tenant was the sole person on the tenancy agreement but had flatmates residing in the property with him.
The parties agreed to reduce the fixed term tenancy which ended on 15 November 2023.
There has been previous Tribunal hearing over this tenancy and between these parties.
On 24 October 2023 Adjudicator Woodhouse ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant for breach of quiet enjoyment and failure to lodge the bond within the specified time frame.
Furthermore, there were directions given that the Landlord was to request [electrician] to return to the premises and undertake an updated inspection of the electrical system in the premises. [Electrician] was to prepare a report on his findings and confirm whether or not the property is safe for the tenant to reside in. The tenant was to be provided with a copy of the report within 24 hours of the landlord receiving it.
The landlord failed to obtain a report from [Electrician], and as a consequence the tenant did not receive a copy nor confirmation that the property was safe.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
This is a tenant application. [The tenant/s] is seeking: - Refund of the bond, -Claim that the landlord fraudulently prepared and signed the bond centre refund form, forging his signature to have the bond refunded to her. -Breach of a work order -Breach of quiet enjoyment -Exemplary damages for the breaches -Refund of utilities paid. Bond refund and fraudulent signing of bond refund
The landlord was fined in the earlier hearing with Adjudicator Woodhouse for failing to lodge the bond within the required time. After the end of the tenancy the tenant did not receive his bond back.
When the tenant queried this with Tenancy Services, he was advised on 30 November 2023 that the bond was refunded to the landlord on 6 October 2023, despite the tenancy not terminating until 15 November 2023.
This was the first that the tenant knew of his bond being refunded to the landlord. The tenant obtained a copy of the Bond Refund Form, which purported to have the tenants name and signature on it.
There is no doubt that someone has fraudulently signed the tenant’s name on this document for the purpose of getting the tenants bond of $6920.00 paid to them.
When this was raised at the hearing the landlord denied any knowledge of the fraud and could not recall whether or not she had received the bond money. The bank account used to refund the money was not the same one that the landlord generally used. The tenant should consider making a complaint of fraud to the New Zealand Police.
I am not able to say who has committed this fraud nor who received the bond money.
However, the tenant has not received his bond back and has applied to the tenant for it to be refunded to him. There is no dispute that the tenant paid the bond to the landlord and that eventually the landlord paid it to the bond centre.
The landlord does not have an application before the Tribunal seeking to make a claim against the bond. Therefore, the bond is to be refunded to the tenant by
00pm on 16 July 2024. Breach of work order
Adjudicator Woodhouse set out specific requirements for the landlord to carry out in his Order of 24 October 2023. The purpose of the Order was to ensure the safety of the property and the tenants.
It is not in dispute that the landlord did not comply with the Order.
The landlord claimed that the electrician came back to the property but did not carry out an inspection or prepare a report. It is regrettable that the landlord did not comply with her obligation to ensure the health and safety of her tenant while residing in her property.
Despite the requirements set out in the Order of 24 October 2023, I cannot say that those requirements fulfil the criteria of a “work order”. (See s 2 RTA).
Therefore, I cannot take the issue of the landlord’s breach of the Order any further, other than to say it is incumbent on a landlord to comply with the RTA and ensure the safety of their property. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
In Adjudicator Woodhouse’s Order of 24 October 2023, he compensated the tenant for the landlord’s breach of his quiet enjoyment.
The issue raised in the earlier Order is the same as is before me for determination. The landlord has an office downstairs in the property. The landlord and her son work from this office. They have courier deliveries to the address 2-3 times per week as they run a business from the office.
This is a multi-tenanted property that all share the same street address 2/24 West End Road, Herne Bay.
As there is only one street address for the whole house the couriers and customers of the landlord often come to the tenant’s unit looking for them.
The tenant says that on occasions the interactions with the landlords’ customers have been unpleasant. However, the constant interruption of people coming to the unit seeking the landlord, is relentless and impacting on their quiet enjoyment.
Despite Adjudicator Woodhouse finding that the landlord had breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in the 24 October 2023, the tenant says the breach continues. The tenant seeks to claim again for breach of his quiet enjoyment.
I note Adjudicator Woodhouse commented in paragraph 65 of his Order that it is not acceptable for the landlord to use the tenancy address as a service or delivery address for her business, or deliveries for family members. That the landlord should have arranged a different address for those purposes. Despite these comments to the landlord, she has continued to behave in the same manner without addressing the issue and finding an alternative address for deliveries.
I find that the landlord has continued to breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and believe that the tenant should be compensated for the inconvenience of having to deal with customers and deliveries to the unit. I consider $1000.00 is reasonable given that the landlord has continued to breach the privacy of the tenant despite an earlier determination of the same. Refund of utilities paid:
The tenant claimed that throughout the tenancy there where issues with the electricity which meant that there was a loss of amenities. This claim incorporates the tenants claim of failure to maintain. The switchboard for the power was an old system that would “trip” whenever more than a few appliances where operating at the same time. The tenant said this impacted on the 6-7 students that were living at the property.
The tenant had an electrician, [electrician], come and inspected the switchboard and electricity. [The electrician] assessed that the oven needed to be rewired with a dedicated circuit, rewire any TRS cable in the house, rewire any VIR cabling found in the house, upgrade the switchboard to current NZ standards and install smoke alarms.
The utilities were paid weekly with the rent as follows: -$1730 rent -$35.00 per person per week for power -$5 each for Wi-Fi and $5 for water.
The tenant says that they had to use the power sparingly because of the power “tripping” when it was overloaded. There were no separate power bills for each unit, only one for the whole building which the landlord would apportion to each tenant.
This tenancy ran for 34 weeks in total, and the tenant paid a total of $1190.00 in power bills. The landlord has not complied with the requirement to provide a further report on the status of the power in the unit which could have refuted the tenants claim of loss of power. Given the evidence as stated by the tenant regarding the lack of power usage and the report of [the electrician], I am satisfied that the landlord should pay the tenant compensation for the loss of use of utilities.
The landlord is to pay the tenant $396.66 in compensation. Bond:
I confirmed with the tenant after the hearing and the landlord has paid the full bond back to the tenant. Suppression and filing fee:
The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression and as he has been substantially successful, I am granting him suppression.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4805357 — net $8,337.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: refund of bond	$6,920.00	refund of bond
Exemplary damages- Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$1,000.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for loss of utilities	$396.66	Compensation for loss of utilities
Net award	$8,337.10
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,337.10

Order

Compensation for the refund of the bond of $6920.00 is to be paid to the tenant directly by the Landlord by 5.00pm on 16 July 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy for premises located at 2/24 West End Road, Herne Bay. The fixed term tenancy commenced on 24 March 2023. The weekly rental was $1975.00.
The tenant was the sole person on the tenancy agreement but had flatmates residing in the property with him.
The parties agreed to reduce the fixed term tenancy which ended on 15 November 2023.
There has been previous Tribunal hearing over this tenancy and between these parties.
On 24 October 2023 Adjudicator Woodhouse ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant for breach of quiet enjoyment and failure to lodge the bond within the specified time frame.
Furthermore, there were directions given that the Landlord was to request [electrician] to return to the premises and undertake an updated inspection of the electrical system in the premises. [Electrician] was to prepare a report on his findings and confirm whether or not the property is safe for the tenant to reside in. The tenant was to be provided with a copy of the report within 24 hours of the landlord receiving it.
The landlord failed to obtain a report from [Electrician], and as a consequence the tenant did not receive a copy nor confirmation that the property was safe.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
This is a tenant application. [The tenant/s] is seeking: - Refund of the bond, -Claim that the landlord fraudulently prepared and signed the bond centre refund form, forging his signature to have the bond refunded to her. -Breach of a work order -Breach of quiet enjoyment -Exemplary damages for the breaches -Refund of utilities paid. Bond refund and fraudulent signing of bond refund
The landlord was fined in the earlier hearing with Adjudicator Woodhouse for failing to lodge the bond within the required time. After the end of the tenancy the tenant did not receive his bond back.
When the tenant queried this with Tenancy Services, he was advised on 30 November 2023 that the bond was refunded to the landlord on 6 October 2023, despite the tenancy not terminating until 15 November 2023.
This was the first that the tenant knew of his bond being refunded to the landlord. The tenant obtained a copy of the Bond Refund Form, which purported to have the tenants name and signature on it.
There is no doubt that someone has fraudulently signed the tenant’s name on this document for the purpose of getting the tenants bond of $6920.00 paid to them.
When this was raised at the hearing the landlord denied any knowledge of the fraud and could not recall whether or not she had received the bond money. The bank account used to refund the money was not the same one that the landlord generally used. The tenant should consider making a complaint of fraud to the New Zealand Police.
I am not able to say who has committed this fraud nor who received the bond money.
However, the tenant has not received his bond back and has applied to the tenant for it to be refunded to him. There is no dispute that the tenant paid the bond to the landlord and that eventually the landlord paid it to the bond centre.
The landlord does not have an application before the Tribunal seeking to make a claim against the bond. Therefore, the bond is to be refunded to the tenant by
00pm on 16 July 2024. Breach of work order
Adjudicator Woodhouse set out specific requirements for the landlord to carry out in his Order of 24 October 2023. The purpose of the Order was to ensure the safety of the property and the tenants.
It is not in dispute that the landlord did not comply with the Order.
The landlord claimed that the electrician came back to the property but did not carry out an inspection or prepare a report. It is regrettable that the landlord did not comply with her obligation to ensure the health and safety of her tenant while residing in her property.
Despite the requirements set out in the Order of 24 October 2023, I cannot say that those requirements fulfil the criteria of a “work order”. (See s 2 RTA).
Therefore, I cannot take the issue of the landlord’s breach of the Order any further, other than to say it is incumbent on a landlord to comply with the RTA and ensure the safety of their property. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
In Adjudicator Woodhouse’s Order of 24 October 2023, he compensated the tenant for the landlord’s breach of his quiet enjoyment.
The issue raised in the earlier Order is the same as is before me for determination. The landlord has an office downstairs in the property. The landlord and her son work from this office. They have courier deliveries to the address 2-3 times per week as they run a business from the office.
This is a multi-tenanted property that all share the same street address 2/24 West End Road, Herne Bay.
As there is only one street address for the whole house the couriers and customers of the landlord often come to the tenant’s unit looking for them.
The tenant says that on occasions the interactions with the landlords’ customers have been unpleasant. However, the constant interruption of people coming to the unit seeking the landlord, is relentless and impacting on their quiet enjoyment.
Despite Adjudicator Woodhouse finding that the landlord had breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in the 24 October 2023, the tenant says the breach continues. The tenant seeks to claim again for breach of his quiet enjoyment.
I note Adjudicator Woodhouse commented in paragraph 65 of his Order that it is not acceptable for the landlord to use the tenancy address as a service or delivery address for her business, or deliveries for family members. That the landlord should have arranged a different address for those purposes. Despite these comments to the landlord, she has continued to behave in the same manner without addressing the issue and finding an alternative address for deliveries.
I find that the landlord has continued to breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and believe that the tenant should be compensated for the inconvenience of having to deal with customers and deliveries to the unit. I consider $1000.00 is reasonable given that the landlord has continued to breach the privacy of the tenant despite an earlier determination of the same. Refund of utilities paid:
The tenant claimed that throughout the tenancy there where issues with the electricity which meant that there was a loss of amenities. This claim incorporates the tenants claim of failure to maintain. The switchboard for the power was an old system that would “trip” whenever more than a few appliances where operating at the same time. The tenant said this impacted on the 6-7 students that were living at the property.
The tenant had an electrician, [electrician], come and inspected the switchboard and electricity. [The electrician] assessed that the oven needed to be rewired with a dedicated circuit, rewire any TRS cable in the house, rewire any VIR cabling found in the house, upgrade the switchboard to current NZ standards and install smoke alarms.
The utilities were paid weekly with the rent as follows: -$1730 rent -$35.00 per person per week for power -$5 each for Wi-Fi and $5 for water.
The tenant says that they had to use the power sparingly because of the power “tripping” when it was overloaded. There were no separate power bills for each unit, only one for the whole building which the landlord would apportion to each tenant.
This tenancy ran for 34 weeks in total, and the tenant paid a total of $1190.00 in power bills. The landlord has not complied with the requirement to provide a further report on the status of the power in the unit which could have refuted the tenants claim of loss of power. Given the evidence as stated by the tenant regarding the lack of power usage and the report of [the electrician], I am satisfied that the landlord should pay the tenant compensation for the loss of use of utilities.
The landlord is to pay the tenant $396.66 in compensation. Bond:
I confirmed with the tenant after the hearing and the landlord has paid the full bond back to the tenant. Suppression and filing fee:
The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression and as he has been substantially successful, I am granting him suppression.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4805357 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 24 West End Road, Herne Bay, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4805357 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 24 West End Road, Herne Bay, Auckland 1022

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