What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4812997 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Wairere Waikato at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4812997?

Call Out Charge For Electrician On 1…: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $756.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812997?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10485958-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4812997 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Wairere Waikato at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4812997?

Call Out Charge For Electrician On 1…: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $756.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812997?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10485958-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4812997 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4812997 — net $2,449.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Call out charge for electrician on 12 February 2024	$172.50	Call out charge for electrician on 12 February 2024
Water rates: (to 6 June 2024	$756.45	Water rates: (to 6 June 2024
Exemplary damages: failure to allow landlord lawful access to the premise-s48(4)(b) of the RTA	$1,500.00	________________________________ 48129976 make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA accordin…
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,449.39
Bond	$2,449.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,449.39

Order

The tenancy of Wairere Waikato at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 11:59pm on Friday 21 June 2024.
Pursuant to s138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016, I grant leave to the landlord to enforce this Order from 11:59pm on Friday 21 June 2024.
The tenant owes the landlord $2,449.39 calculated as set out in the table below (the debt):
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,449.39 from the bond of $$2,660.00 to Baath Rentals Limited As Agent For Manish Kohli immediately to pay the debt.
The balance of the bond of $210.61 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s statutory and contractual based obligations, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of part of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to allow the landlord access to the premises to undertake property inspections and failing to allow access to the landlord and/or its contractors to undertake repair and maintenance works.
The landlord has proven it has made numerous attempts to access the property to undertake routine property inspections. Several emails to the tenant requesting access to the property for this purpose have been provided to the Tribunal. The landlord says when it tries to access the property on the dates the tenant has been notified of it finds the gate padlocked and a dog roaming the property off leash.
Section 48(4)(b) of the RTA says it is an unlawful act if the tenant fails, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter under subsections (2) to (3) of the RTA.
The landlord has proven it has given the required 48 hours’ notice to the tenant of its intention to access the premise to undertake a routine property inspection (Refer s48(2)(b) of the RTA).
The landlord has also proven it has given the tenant at least 24 hours’ notice of its intended entry the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of the premises (Refer s48(2)(d) of the RTA);
The landlord: a. Sent the tenant a notice on 13 November 2023 that the electrical contractor would be at the premise on 14 November 2023 to investigate and undertake any required electrical repairs; b. Sent the tenant a notice of inspection on 13 November 2023 for an intended inspection date of 23 November 2023; c. Sent the tenant an email on 13 and 20 November 2023 about the electrician, it had arranged to go to the premise on 14 November 2023 to investigate and remedy the electrical issues the tenant had reported, not being able to access the property when he arrived so could not complete the job and requesting the tenant agree a time for the contractor to access to the property for this purpose; d. Sent the tenant a notice of inspection on 7 December 2023 for an intended inspection date of 13 December 2023; e. Sent the tenant a letter dated 13 December 2023 issuing the tenant a breach notice for her denial of access to the landlord to undertake a property inspection and informing her that this is a breach of the terms of her tenancy agreement and her; f. Sent the tenant an email on 14 December 2023 about the electrician, it had arranged to go to the premise on 13 December 2023 to investigate and remedy the electrical issues the tenant had reported, not being able to access the property when he arrived so could not complete the job and requesting the tenant agree a time for the contractor to access to the property for this purpose; g. Sent the tenant a letter dated 13 March 2024 issuing the tenant a breach notice for her denial of access to the landlord to undertake a property inspection; h. Sent the tenant an email on 14 February 2024 informing her that the landlord needs urgent access to the premise to undertake a property inspection as the last one was on 24 August 2023; i. Sent the tenant an email on 14 February 2024 requesting urgent access to the premise by an electrical contractor to undertake repair and maintenance work as the tenant had informed the landlord half the premise was without power; and j. Sent the tenant a breach notice on 10 June 2024 for making noise that disturbed the neighbours and damaging the property. The landlord says it was informed that the neighbours had reported significance noise disturbances at the property to the Police and that the neighbours had witnessed the tenant and/or her guests smashing the window frames of the premise and smashing up other parts of the premise as well as drug activity.
The landlord has also proven it served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 23 May 2024 for non-compliance issues being: a. Repeated failure to give access to the landlord for property inspections; b. Having the gate padlocked on days the landlord has given notice it is intending to undertake property inspections and/or bringing contractors to the premise to do repair and maintenance work; and c. Not having the dog tied up when it is in the yard of the premises on days the landlord has given notice it is intending to access the property.
The tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required 14-day period.
The landlord says when it drives past the premise on days it has not issued notice of its intention to access the premise, there is no padlock on the gate. The padlock is only present on days the landlord had given the tenant notice of its intention to access the premise or to have its contractors access the premise.
The landlord has confirmed the owner’s insurance has been invalidated because it is a condition of its insurance cover that its property managers undertake regular property inspections on a frequency of no less than three monthly.
The landlord has also confirmed it has had further complaints from the tenant’s neighbours about anti-social behaviour that includes drug activity, excess noise and the smashing up of the premise.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because on the balance of probabilities the tenant is damaging the premise after invalidating the owner’s insurance by repeatedly refusing access to the landlord to inspect the premise and to undertake the required repairs and maintenance. It has been close to a year since the landlord has been allowed to access the premise.

Should the tenancy be terminated immediately?

The landlord has provided evidence that shows the tenant in all probability has already caused significant damage to the property that it fears will be exacerbated once she is aware of this eviction order.
I have exercised my discretion pursuant to s138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016 and granted leave to the landlord to enforce this Order from 11:59pm tonight. Should the tenant be liable for the electrician’s call out fee?
The landlord has provided evidence that shows the tenant has failed to allow the electrician access to the premise on several occasions.
The electrician came with the landlord to the premise on 14 February 2024 to investigate and remediate the power issues the tenant had reported. He had been unable to access the premise on a number of prior occasions and for this one he charged a call out fee of $172.50 as he went to the premise and was denied access.
I find that the tenant is liable for this charge out fee that was incurred by the landlord because of her breach of s48(4)(b) of the RTA in that she failed to allow the electrician access to the premise to carry out repair work after being given lawful notice of the electrician’s intention to access the premise. Did the tenant breach her obligations to grant the landlord lawful access to the premise?
Breaching of the tenant’s s48(4)(b) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that for the reasons set out in paragraphs [4] to [17] above the tenant has intentionally committed an unlawful act in that she has repeatedly failed to allow landlord to enter the premise in circumstances where the landlord is entitled to enter in breach of her s48(4)(b) of the RTA obligations.
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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the tenant to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the tenant knew the landlord was intending to access the premise for a lawful purpose and she intentionally padlocked the gate and had a dog loose on the days she had been notified the landlord was going to access the premise; b. the landlord’s insurance has been invalidated because of the tenant’s repeated refusal to grant access to the premise despite numerous communications by the landlord trying to get access; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the invalidation of its insurance and the alleged damage it is unlikely to be able to recover the costs of; and d. It is in the public interest for tenant’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their access obligations pursuant to s48 of the RTA.
I find the number of the tenant’s breaches of s48(4)(b) of the RTA and the repercussions for the landlord of these breaches justifies the quantum of the exemplary damages being 100% of the maximum the RTA provides for and I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA accordingly. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applied for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4812997 — net $2,449.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Call out charge for electrician on 12 February 2024	$172.50	Call out charge for electrician on 12 February 2024
Water rates: (to 6 June 2024	$756.45	Water rates: (to 6 June 2024
Exemplary damages: failure to allow landlord lawful access to the premise-s48(4)(b) of the RTA	$1,500.00	________________________________ 48129976 make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA accordin…
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,449.39
Bond	$2,449.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,449.39

Order

The tenancy of Wairere Waikato at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 11:59pm on Friday 21 June 2024.
Pursuant to s138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016, I grant leave to the landlord to enforce this Order from 11:59pm on Friday 21 June 2024.
The tenant owes the landlord $2,449.39 calculated as set out in the table below (the debt):
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,449.39 from the bond of $$2,660.00 to Baath Rentals Limited As Agent For Manish Kohli immediately to pay the debt.
The balance of the bond of $210.61 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s statutory and contractual based obligations, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of part of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to allow the landlord access to the premises to undertake property inspections and failing to allow access to the landlord and/or its contractors to undertake repair and maintenance works.
The landlord has proven it has made numerous attempts to access the property to undertake routine property inspections. Several emails to the tenant requesting access to the property for this purpose have been provided to the Tribunal. The landlord says when it tries to access the property on the dates the tenant has been notified of it finds the gate padlocked and a dog roaming the property off leash.
Section 48(4)(b) of the RTA says it is an unlawful act if the tenant fails, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter under subsections (2) to (3) of the RTA.
The landlord has proven it has given the required 48 hours’ notice to the tenant of its intention to access the premise to undertake a routine property inspection (Refer s48(2)(b) of the RTA).
The landlord has also proven it has given the tenant at least 24 hours’ notice of its intended entry the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of the premises (Refer s48(2)(d) of the RTA);
The landlord: a. Sent the tenant a notice on 13 November 2023 that the electrical contractor would be at the premise on 14 November 2023 to investigate and undertake any required electrical repairs; b. Sent the tenant a notice of inspection on 13 November 2023 for an intended inspection date of 23 November 2023; c. Sent the tenant an email on 13 and 20 November 2023 about the electrician, it had arranged to go to the premise on 14 November 2023 to investigate and remedy the electrical issues the tenant had reported, not being able to access the property when he arrived so could not complete the job and requesting the tenant agree a time for the contractor to access to the property for this purpose; d. Sent the tenant a notice of inspection on 7 December 2023 for an intended inspection date of 13 December 2023; e. Sent the tenant a letter dated 13 December 2023 issuing the tenant a breach notice for her denial of access to the landlord to undertake a property inspection and informing her that this is a breach of the terms of her tenancy agreement and her; f. Sent the tenant an email on 14 December 2023 about the electrician, it had arranged to go to the premise on 13 December 2023 to investigate and remedy the electrical issues the tenant had reported, not being able to access the property when he arrived so could not complete the job and requesting the tenant agree a time for the contractor to access to the property for this purpose; g. Sent the tenant a letter dated 13 March 2024 issuing the tenant a breach notice for her denial of access to the landlord to undertake a property inspection; h. Sent the tenant an email on 14 February 2024 informing her that the landlord needs urgent access to the premise to undertake a property inspection as the last one was on 24 August 2023; i. Sent the tenant an email on 14 February 2024 requesting urgent access to the premise by an electrical contractor to undertake repair and maintenance work as the tenant had informed the landlord half the premise was without power; and j. Sent the tenant a breach notice on 10 June 2024 for making noise that disturbed the neighbours and damaging the property. The landlord says it was informed that the neighbours had reported significance noise disturbances at the property to the Police and that the neighbours had witnessed the tenant and/or her guests smashing the window frames of the premise and smashing up other parts of the premise as well as drug activity.
The landlord has also proven it served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 23 May 2024 for non-compliance issues being: a. Repeated failure to give access to the landlord for property inspections; b. Having the gate padlocked on days the landlord has given notice it is intending to undertake property inspections and/or bringing contractors to the premise to do repair and maintenance work; and c. Not having the dog tied up when it is in the yard of the premises on days the landlord has given notice it is intending to access the property.
The tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required 14-day period.
The landlord says when it drives past the premise on days it has not issued notice of its intention to access the premise, there is no padlock on the gate. The padlock is only present on days the landlord had given the tenant notice of its intention to access the premise or to have its contractors access the premise.
The landlord has confirmed the owner’s insurance has been invalidated because it is a condition of its insurance cover that its property managers undertake regular property inspections on a frequency of no less than three monthly.
The landlord has also confirmed it has had further complaints from the tenant’s neighbours about anti-social behaviour that includes drug activity, excess noise and the smashing up of the premise.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because on the balance of probabilities the tenant is damaging the premise after invalidating the owner’s insurance by repeatedly refusing access to the landlord to inspect the premise and to undertake the required repairs and maintenance. It has been close to a year since the landlord has been allowed to access the premise.

Should the tenancy be terminated immediately?

The landlord has provided evidence that shows the tenant in all probability has already caused significant damage to the property that it fears will be exacerbated once she is aware of this eviction order.
I have exercised my discretion pursuant to s138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016 and granted leave to the landlord to enforce this Order from 11:59pm tonight. Should the tenant be liable for the electrician’s call out fee?
The landlord has provided evidence that shows the tenant has failed to allow the electrician access to the premise on several occasions.
The electrician came with the landlord to the premise on 14 February 2024 to investigate and remediate the power issues the tenant had reported. He had been unable to access the premise on a number of prior occasions and for this one he charged a call out fee of $172.50 as he went to the premise and was denied access.
I find that the tenant is liable for this charge out fee that was incurred by the landlord because of her breach of s48(4)(b) of the RTA in that she failed to allow the electrician access to the premise to carry out repair work after being given lawful notice of the electrician’s intention to access the premise. Did the tenant breach her obligations to grant the landlord lawful access to the premise?
Breaching of the tenant’s s48(4)(b) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that for the reasons set out in paragraphs [4] to [17] above the tenant has intentionally committed an unlawful act in that she has repeatedly failed to allow landlord to enter the premise in circumstances where the landlord is entitled to enter in breach of her s48(4)(b) of the RTA obligations.
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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the tenant to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the tenant knew the landlord was intending to access the premise for a lawful purpose and she intentionally padlocked the gate and had a dog loose on the days she had been notified the landlord was going to access the premise; b. the landlord’s insurance has been invalidated because of the tenant’s repeated refusal to grant access to the premise despite numerous communications by the landlord trying to get access; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the invalidation of its insurance and the alleged damage it is unlikely to be able to recover the costs of; and d. It is in the public interest for tenant’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their access obligations pursuant to s48 of the RTA.
I find the number of the tenant’s breaches of s48(4)(b) of the RTA and the repercussions for the landlord of these breaches justifies the quantum of the exemplary damages being 100% of the maximum the RTA provides for and I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA accordingly. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applied for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812997 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812997 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the tenancy be terminated immediately?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the tenancy be terminated immediately?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions