What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808297 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 4808297?

Change Of Locks: $334.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808297?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10597158-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808297 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 4808297?

Change Of Locks: $334.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808297?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10597158-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808297 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808297 — net $415.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Change of locks	$334.74		Change of locks
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide written tenancy		$750.00	Failure to provide written tenancy
Total award	$334.74	$750.00
Net award		$415.26
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$415.26

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808297 — net $415.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Change of locks	$334.74		Change of locks
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide written tenancy		$750.00	Failure to provide written tenancy
Total award	$334.74	$750.00
Net award		$415.26
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$415.26

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

The Case Conference order dated 20 April 2024 sets out the background to the applications.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 26 June 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Tenant application Electricity
Tenants are obliged to pay for any outgoings that they consume during their tenancy, including power 1 .
Landlords cannot charge tenants a fixed or arbitrary amount for power use. To require tenants to pay for power, the landlord must have a means of calculating the tenant’s actual power use.
There is no legal requirement that tenanted premises must have their own electricity meter. However, if there is no electricity meter then the landlord cannot require the tenant to pay for power.
There is no electricity meter for these premises.
Mr Vannoort did not require [The tenant/s] to pay for any power that he used during the tenancy.
On 29 January there was a power outage at the property. [The tenant/s] said that when he spoke to Mr Vannoort after the power went out, Mr Vannoort effectively admitted that he had turned off the power.
Mr Vannoort denied this. He said that the power went off because [The tenant/s] was running too many electrical appliances, including an air conditioning unit, and the fuses tripped. When he turned the fuses back on, the power came on.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to intentionally interfere with the supply of services to tenanted premises 2 . Exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 can apply.
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof. The only evidence available to me about what happened on 29 January is the conflicting oral evidence of [The tenant/s] and Mr Vannoort.
[The tenant/s] has not proven that Mr Vannoort interfered with the supply of power. Bond
[The tenant/s] paid a bond of $300.00 on or around 15 January 2024.
Landlords must forward any bond payments to the Bond Centre within 23- working days of receipt 3 .
The tenancy ended on 11 February 2024. 1 Section 39(4)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 45(2) RTA 3 Section 19(1)(b) RTA
Mr Vannoort refunded the bond to [The tenant/s] after the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended before the expiry of the 23-working day period that the landlord has to lodge the bond.
Therefore Mr Vannoort did not breach his legal duty in respect of paying the bond to the Bond Centre, and there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy 4 .
A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act 5 . Exemplary damages of up to $3,000 can apply.
[The tenant/s] said that Mr Vannoort drew him into his “vortex” by requiring him to oversee / spy on contractors and other tenants. [The tenant/s] said that he felt pressured into complying with Mr Vannoort’s request because Mr Vannoort threatened him, including threatening to report him to immigration.
[The tenant/s] provided screenshots of all the messages between himself and Mr Vannoort.
There is no message wherein Mr Vannoort explicitly asks or instructs [The tenant/s] to watch any contractors or other tenants.
[The tenant/s] did send Mr Vannoort photographs when a there was a roofing contractor on site.
Mr Vannoort said that he didn’t ask [The tenant/s] to send him pictures or messages about the roofing contractor.
[The tenant/s] sent Mr Vannoort a message saying he will “keep an eye” on some unidentified person(s), but there is nothing in the exchange to indicate that Mr Vannoort asked [The tenant/s] to do this.
There was one message from Mr Vannoort that referenced immigration. The message stated: I send you a message yesterday for a meeting at 8.30am an no sign of you!! Again I am giving you the opportunity to find a dignified solution as remember also immigration is involved and would not want to create problems!
Mr Vannoort said that from the beginning of his dealings with [The tenant/s] he was concerned about whether [The tenant/s] was in the country legally. From 4 Section 38(2) RTA 5 Section 39(3) RTA his perspective, [The tenant/s] did not adequately address this concern during the tenancy.
The evidence provided does not establish that Mr Vannoort asked or instructed [The tenant/s] to oversee / spy on contractors or on other tenants.
Landlords should be careful about communicating with tenants about non- tenancy related matters. [The tenant/s]’s residency status is not relevant to his tenancy.
However, I accept that Mr Vannoort genuinely understood that he had a duty to ensure that [The tenant/s] was in the country legally and that he could get into trouble if he did not take all reasonable steps to clarify this. By late January / early February, when Mr Vannoort sent the message quoted above, the relationship between them had soured, and both parties. In context, the single somewhat inappropriate (and also somewhat ambiguous) message does not amount to harassment of [The tenant/s]. Failure to provide a written tenancy agreement
Landlords must ensure that the tenancy agreement is in writing. Landlords must sign the agreement and provide it to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy 6 .
The tenancy agreement must include certain information, including an insulation statement, a healthy homes statement, and an insurance statement 7 .
Mr Vannoort did not provide [The tenant/s] with a written tenancy agreement.
Failure to provide a written tenancy agreement is an unlawful act. Failure to provide an insulation statement, a healthy homes statement, or an insurance statement are unlawful acts. Exemplary damages of up to $750.00 can apply for each of these unlawful acts.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 8 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and 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.
Mr Vannoort said that he drafted a tenancy agreement, on the standard Tenancy Services form, before the start of the tenancy and he made several 6 Section 13(1) and (2) RTA 7 Section 13A RTA 8 Section 109 RTA attempts to meet with [The tenant/s] to complete and sign the agreement, but [The tenant/s] failed / refused to meet with him.
The argument is not convincing. Mr Vannoort has consistently argued that in his view the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to this tenancy because these are not ‘separate’ premises and because this was a brief tenancy. Given that belief, it seems extremely unlikely that Mr Vannoort would have prepared a written tenancy agreement and attempted to have [The tenant/s] sign it.
There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords provide a written agreement to the tenant, and that the agreement provides information about the premises.
It would be unjust and excessively punitive to make separate cumulative awards of exemplary damages in respect of the failure to provide a tenancy agreement, an insulation statement, a healthy homes statement, and an insurance statement.
Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $750.00. Landlord application
Mr Vannoort withdrew the claim for internet use at the hearing. Damage claims
Tenants are liable for damage that occurs during the tenancy that is the consequence of an intentional or careless act by them or by someone who is at the premises with their consent 9 .
This part of the landlord’s claim seeks compensation for: a. Damage to metal plate underneath woodburner. b. Damage to window frame (top), windowsill, and door. c. Stain on rug. d. Damage to driveway. a. Metal plate
Mr Vannoort purchased a woodburner that he was planning to have installed before winter. The woodburner was in the premises, sitting on top of a metal plate that he purchased for that purpose. 9 Section 49B RTA
Mr Vannoort provided a photograph showing that at the end of the tenancy the metal plate had a gouge in the middle of it and was buckled, so that the edges of the plate were raised up.
[The tenant/s] said that he did not touch the woodburner or the plate during the tenancy. He said that the edges of the plate were raised from the start of his tenancy, and he put rugs around the edge of it so that he would not catch his foot.
There was no entry inspection report and no photographs from the beginning of the tenancy. However, I accept Mr Vannoort’s statement that the plate was purchased new at the same time as the woodburner.
The damage shown in the photographs from the end of the tenancy is beyond fair wear and tear.
However, having regard to the nature of the damage and to the object itself, I do not agree that the damage is more likely than not to have been carelessly or intentionally caused by the tenant.
The plate had a heavy woodburner sitting on top of it for the duration of the tenancy. The woodburner was too heavy for [The tenant/s] to move, even if he had wanted to. It is difficult to imagine, even in theory, what [The tenant/s] could have done to the plate to damage it.
My finding is that it is unlikely that this damage was caused by [The tenant/s] either carelessly or intentionally.
Therefore this part of the claim is dismissed. b. Windowsill and window frame, and door
Mr Vannoort’s photographs show damage to the top of the frame of one window (paint missing, small holes) and to a windowsill. There was also a missing area of paint on a door.
Mr Vannoort said that the damage to one of the windows related to [The tenant/s]’s air conditioning unit. He said that the door had a sticker on it [The tenant/s] put there, and the paint lifted when they removed the sticker.
[The tenant/s] denied all of these allegations. He said that the damage to the windows and door were present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The premises were recently painted, but there was one tenancy after the re- paint and before [The tenant/s]’s tenancy.
The landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the damage occurred during the period of this tenancy.
In the absence of a property inspection report or entry photographs, my finding is that Mr Vannoort has not proven that this damage occurred during the period of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy. c. Stain on rug
Mr Vannoort’s photographs from the end of the tenancy show a small dark stain on a rug in the lounge.
[The tenant/s] said that the stain did not occur during his tenancy, and the rug is not new.
The landlord has the burden of proof. Again, the in absence of an entry inspection report or photographs from the beginning of the tenancy I must find that it is not proven that the damage occurred during [The tenant/s]’s tenancy. d. Driveway
Mr Vannoort’s photographs show that part of the end of the concreted driveway has broken away.
[The tenant/s] said that he did not use this driveway. Mr Vannoort disputed this.
Even if Mr Vannoort could prove that [The tenant/s] used this driveway exclusively, it is not apparent how this could be characterised as careless or intentional damage by the tenant. No-one is suggesting that [The tenant/s] took a sledgehammer to the driveway or that he brought very heavy trucks onto the driveway. [The tenant/s] is entitled to drive on the driveway and park his car there. If the driveway broke due to this type of use, this is a landlord’s maintenance cost and not a tenant cost.
It is not proven that [The tenant/s] intentionally or carelessly damaged the driveway. This part of the claim is dismissed. Damage / losses caused by power outage
Mr Vannoort seeks compensation on the grounds that: a. [The tenant/s] installed a portable air conditioning system in the premises without his consent. b. The air conditioning system uses a large amount of power. c. The excessive power draw caused the fuses on the whole property to trip. d. This meant that his farm was without power. e. This meant that water did not get to stock troughs. f. This caused the stock to damage the troughs.
Mr Vannoort said that [The tenant/s]’s air conditioning unit tripped the fuses multiple times during this four-week tenancy and that every time it happened, he raised it with [The tenant/s].
There is very little evidence of this. It is only mentioned once in a text message, near the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] said that the only concern that Mr Vannoort raised about the air conditioning system was the cost of power, and the only occasion that the power went off was on the 29 th of January, which, as discussed above, he believes was an intentional action by the landlord and nothing to do with the air conditioning unit.
It is not unlawful for a tenant to plug in appliances at a property. If the property has some limitations on the power supply (an example would be an “off grid” property on solar power), this is something that must be discussed and agreed at the beginning of the tenancy and formalised in the written tenancy agreement that the landlord has an obligation to provide.
[The tenant/s] has not breached any legal duty to Mr Vannoort by having an air conditioning unit at the premises. [The tenant/s] is not liable for the alleged costs and losses that Mr Vannoort is claiming. Cleaning and change of locks
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys at the end of the tenancy 10 .
The claim seeks $105.00 for cleaning and $334.74 for change of locks.
It is not proven that [The tenant/s] failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] left the key in a plant pot at the end of the tenancy. He did not tell Mr Vannoort. He told a neighbour and asked the neighbour to tell Mr Vannoort, but that person failed to.
Mr Vannoort had the locks changed by Northland Locksmiths.
I was provided with a copy of Northland Locksmith’s invoice dated 20 February 2024. [The tenant/s] said that there were locksmiths at the premises often and he cannot be sure that the invoice presented is genuine.
[The tenant/s] failed to return the key to the landlord. The landlord is entitled to have the lock changed. The cost claimed is fair and reasonable. The invoice appears to be genuine. [The tenant/s]’s extreme distrust of Mr Vannoort is not evidence of fraud.
The claim is proven. 10 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA Filing fee, name suppression
Both parties must bear their own cost of the filing fee.
Both parties sought name suppression.
The Tribunal must, on application, grant name suppression to any party that has “substantially succeeded” in the proceedings 11 .
Neither party has, in any sense, substantially succeeded in these proceedings. Both were successful in only one of their many claims. Both contributed to aggravating and inflating the dispute beyond all reasonable proportions. Both submitted volumes of inflammatory and irrelevant “evidence” to the Tribunal.
Neither is entitled to name suppression on that basis.
However, the Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party (whether successful or not) “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 12 . [The tenant/s] provided evidence about a safety risk (not related to the landlord) that he could be exposed to if his name was published. I accept that this is a genuine and real risk, and on that basis I will grant name suppression to [The tenant/s].

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808297 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808297 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions