What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819518 about?

The tribunal order states: Shavin & Co Real Estate Limited Marshneel Lal must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4819518?

Compensation: Breach of s 24- seekin…: $780.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819518?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819518?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10540111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819518 about?

The tribunal order states: Shavin & Co Real Estate Limited Marshneel Lal must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4819518?

Compensation: Breach of s 24- seekin…: $780.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819518?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819518?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10540111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

526 Chapel Road, East Tamaki, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4819518 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819518 — net $4,800.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$4,000.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: Breach of s 24- seeking a market rent increase within 12 months	$780.00	Breach of s 24- seeking a market rent increase within 12 months
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	29. As there is no claim filed by the landlord, then I release the tenant’s bond in full.
Net award	$4,800.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,800.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819518 — net $4,800.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$4,000.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: Breach of s 24- seeking a market rent increase within 12 months	$780.00	Breach of s 24- seeking a market rent increase within 12 months
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	29. As there is no claim filed by the landlord, then I release the tenant’s bond in full.
Net award	$4,800.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,800.44

Order

Shavin & Co Real Estate Limited Marshneel Lal must pay [The tenant/s] $4,800.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 1 July 2024.
The tenants lived in the four-bedroom home with their parents since 2017. During the tenancy they have had four different agencies act as property managers. They say they enjoyed good relationships with all the property management companies. In November 2023 the property management changed again to Shavin & Co Limited.
The tenants are property mangers themselves. The mother of the tenants previously worked with the Ms Lal from Shavin & Co Limited.
The tenants say that over the tenancy that routine maintenance had been done, but any larger more expensive items took a while to get done or were not done, the house began to look worn and tired.
The tenants’ mother would be the usual person who would liaise with the property managers regarding the tenancy.
In November 2023 the landlord came to the property to do their first inspection, whilst at the property they discussed items that needed maintenance and repair. Ms Lal says that the tenant’s mother agreed that if they got all the work that the tenants wanted completed then the tenants said that they would agree to a rent increase.
The tenants agree that that was what was discussed but they say they also said that they had had a rent increase in June 2023, and they say that they agreed that if the items of maintenance and repair would done then they would agree to rent increase after June 2024. The tenants say many of the maintenance items were outstanding for a long time and items like carpet in the main bedroom needed urgent attention. 1
The property manager set about completing many of the items, such as tiling where the carpets had become threadbare, and the carpet tacks were sticking up and replacing the pergola roof that had worn out. On the 21 December 2023 the landlord sent the tenants an email saying: We hope this notice finds you well. As per our discussion on 9th of December 2023, we would like to inform you that effective from 15th of January 2024, the rent price will be increasing. The new rental price will be $890 per week. This decision has been made after careful consideration of market conditions, property expenses and improvements made to the property. The new provisional tenancy agreement will come in place on the 15th of January 2024. During this 3 months provisional period your payments will be monitored and renewed according. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Thank you for attention in this matter.
On the 15 January 2024 the tenants replied to the landlord by email stating that they did not believe that the rent increase was lawful because the rent increase was within 12 months of the last rental increase, there were no disclosed special circumstances and in any case the date of the increase was not 60 days from the date of the notice. The tenants confirmed that they would not pay a rent increase. 1 At the hearing the tenants provided copies of the previous year’s inspection reports from 360 Property Management , they all note that the house is worn and tired and that the landlord should consider replacing items like carpet and repainting the interior. The inspection reports which were received by the owner also clearly state that the tenancy is a periodic tenancy.
The tenants further disputed that the landlord was able to put them on a three month provisional period.
On the 15 January after receiving the tenant’s email the agent sent a reply saying “ I will discuss this with the landlord and let you know the outcome accordingly.”
On the 20 January 2024 the agent emailed the tenant saying: Following our recent discussion, I regret to inform you that the landlord has chosen not to renew your tenancy agreement. An eviction notice will be served imminently. To assist you with the understanding the rental price range I have attached copy of current market rental appraisal for properties with 4 bedrooms in your area below. Additionally, I have included a screenshot of the market value range which you previously provided, indicating that the rental range for four bedroom properties falls between $840 to $950 if you drill down to 4 bedrooms.
Later that same day the landlord wrote again referring to the current market appraisals and saying, “just to elaborate my email the reason for non-renewal of the tenancy contract is that the landlord has decided to do some work at the property.”
The tenant told the landlord that she believed the notice was retaliatory the landlord said that the owner had decided to do a renovation.
The parties continued to communicate with each other the tenant made it clear that the tenancy was a periodic (which is correct). Once the landlord accepted that the tenant had a periodic tenancy, then the landlord gave the tenant a 63 day notice on the 23 February 2024 on the grounds that the landlord’s family member was moving into the property.
The tenants moved out of the property on the 4 May 2024. The rent increase.
Under s24 RTA a landlord must not increase the rent more than once in 12 months. The tenants were quite correct in their understanding of the law and their refusal to pay the increased rent. Further the landlord had not given the tenant the correct notice (number of days) to the new rental. The rent increase was therefore invalid. The landlord was in breach of s24 RTA when it sought to increase the rent on the 21 December 2023.
The tenants did not pay the increased rent, but I am satisfied that they should be awarded general damages of one weeks rent for this breach, to take into account the stress, upset and inconvenience that they were put to as a result of the landlord’s email to increase the rent twice. I therefore award the tenants one week’s rent for this breach. Retaliatory notice
The tenant claims that the landlord’s email of the 20 January and the subsequent termination notice of the 23 February 2023 were in retaliation for the tenant disputing the rent increases.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory because: a) It is clear from the communication on the 20 January that the landlord is wanting to give notice as a result of the tenant not agreeing to the rent increase. The landlord said that they will discuss the tenant’s email refusing the rent increases with the landlord and then the very next communication tells the tenant that they will be terminating the tenancy. There was no evidence offered by the landlord that supported the submission that landlord’s decision to renovate was made independently of the tenants’ response disputing the rent increase. The owners unsigned and undated letter of the 19 February saying that a family member needs the property, is a month after the email first seeking to end the tenancy. b) I regard it as unlikely that the landlord decided to renovate the property between the 15 January and the 20 January because the agent told me that the landlord could not afford to not have the tenants paying late (which the tenants accepted they had paid late (on a different day of the week)) and that is why he put them on a ‘provisional tenancy’. I am unsure that if the landlord’s financial situation was so precarious that he could not afford the tenant’s to pay rent a few days late, as to how the landlord would have financed the renovations. c) The landlord had also signed a one-year property management agreement with Shavin & Co. I do not consider it likely that an owner would sign this agreement in November and then decide less than 2 months later to renovate the property. d) The email of the 20 January links the issue of termination and the rent increases, by providing the tenant with the market appraisals. If the two issues were not linked there is no reason to include the rent appraisals justifying a rent increase. e) I am satisfied that the notice to terminate given on the 23 February is a continuation of the landlord’s retaliatory notice because it was only given when the landlord agreed that the tenant was on a periodic not a fixed term tenancy. I consider that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant’s disputing the increased rent when giving all the emails and notices to end the tenancy. f) There was no further evidence provided to the Tribunal by the landlord showing that a decision regarding the landlord’s brother or another member of the landlord’s family moving into the property had been made in the period 20 January 2024 and 23 February.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act pursuant to sections 54 RTA.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I award the tenants $4000.00 for this breach this takes into account the following: a) The effect on the tenants, the tenants said that as a result of receiving the termination notice that their mother had to give up work earlier than expected to try to find homes, they spent a considerable amount of time applying for, viewing and getting documents ready for a new tenancy. The tenants incurred moving costs. They felt unheard and aggrieved that when they had raised legitimate concerns that the landlord sought to terminate their tenancy. They also felt humiliated and embarrassed that they faced termination even though they were property managers and understood the law. b) The public interest. It is in the public interest that when tenants raise legitimate concerns about a landlord’s conduct or seek to enforce their rights in a tenancy that they do not face the threat of termination. I consider a higher award needs to be made here to act as a deterrent to landlords for two reasons, to show tenants that if they raise legitimate concerns that their tenancies should not be placed in jeopardy, and secondly to make the awards sufficiently high to prevent landlord’s terminating and paying the ‘fine’ which may be seen as more cost effective by a landlord.
At the hearing the tenants raised with me that the landlord had shortly after midnight on the day of the hearing, sent the tenants an email in the early hours of this morning along with an invoice for $14,027.16 for cleaning and damages that the landlord purports that the tenant owes. The invoice details items, including carpet, blinds painting and light fittings and plumbing which appear to be the landlord’s responsibility and most of which clearly noted in the previous property manager’s quarterly inspection reports as needing attention from the landlord.
I am disturbed and concerned with the timing of sending this large invoice and the costs sought. The tenants left the property two months ago. The agents did a property inspection on the 5 May and have not filed a claim for the amount sought. When I asked the landlord why they had not filed the claim and had left it until the morning of the Tenancy Tribunal hearing to seek $14,027 from the tenants, they said that they had to wait for an invoice. Even if that is correct the invoice is dated 10 June and the agents have made no attempt to contact the tenants advising them that they would be seeking any amount.
The tenants accepted that they may be liable for the cleaning costs and the cost of the repair for the hole in a wall, but dispute the rest of the costs, which they say are landlord costs, for maintenance or fair wear and tear, and are the same items as highlighted in the 360 Property Management reports as requiring attention by the landlord.
As there is no claim filed by the landlord, then I release the tenant’s bond in full. I do this because I do not consider that it is fair that the tenant’s bond should be held pending an outcome of proceedings that have yet to be filed, especially when an exemplary damages claim has been made against the landlord. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The tenants/s] has substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant them name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819518 — Exemplary damages at 526 Chapel Road, East Tamaki, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819518 — Exemplary damages at 526 Chapel Road, East Tamaki, Auckland 2016

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