What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4824117 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4824117?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824117?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824117?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10405880-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4824117 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4824117?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824117?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824117?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10405880-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

321 Main South Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4824117 — Harassment

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Wongeoon Vast Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately in reimbursement of the filing fee.
The applicant’s claim for damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The tenancy started on 5 December 2022. It was for a fixed term to 28 March 2023. The tenancy continued after this date on a periodic basis.
The landlord gave the tenant a 90-day notice that the owner intended to sell the property. The last date of the tenancy was 10 March 2024.
The owner of the property text the tenant on 2 February to say, “[a]re you happy to stay until 19 th May? Two months more?” the tenant replied, “OK”.
The landlord text the tenant the following day to confirm this saying, “the property owner said he told you you could stay at [property address] longer and have 19/05/24 as the last day of the tenancy, correct? If yes, we will do the final inspection and keys handover 9.40am 20 May.”
The tenant replied, “[a]ll good.” And the landlord replied, “[g]reat. That’s confirmed.”
The landlord understood this text exchange as a new fixed term tenancy agreement to 19 May 2024.
The tenant understood it as an extension of the time he had to find alternative accommodation. He considered that the original end date of the 90-day notice, being 10 March, had been pushed out to 19 May.
The tenant subsequently found a new rental property and gave notice by text to the landlord on 28 February. He said he would be moving out on 24 March.
Initially the landlord replied that the tenant had miscalculated the 28 days and that the final date would have to be 26 March and the tenant agreed to pay the additional two days rent (the Tribunal calculates that the final day should have been 27 March 2024).
The following day, the landlord text the tenant again to say that his records showed that the tenant had a fixed term to 19 May so could not leave with 28 days’ notice.
In the text exchange that followed, it is clear that both parties understanding of the situation differed as stated in paragraph 7 and 8 above.
After a reasonably lengthy text exchange the tenant accused the landlord of harassment and said he was going to the Tribunal. The landlord replied that he was welcome to “seek advice from tenancy services”.
The tenant is claiming refund of the bond and $5,000 in compensation for harassment and failure to lodge the bond within the required timeframe. Harassment
[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 under section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 under section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
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).
The landlord gave evidence that he ceased communication with the tenant after the exchange referred to above except in response to the tenant’s communications with him.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, I cannot find that the landlord committed an unlawful act in terms of harassment of the tenant.
The parties understanding of the situation differed and as soon as the tenant said he felt harassed, the landlord ended the exchange.
I have no doubt that this was a stressful event for the tenant and his wife, but the evidence does not support a finding of harassment so no damages, exemplary or general, can or should be awarded. Failure to lodge bond in required timeframe
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received under section 19(1) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord gave evidence, and the tenant agreed, that the signed bond form was not given to the landlord until 10 January 2023. This was because the landlord wanted the tenant’s wife to be included on both the tenancy agreement and the bond form.
When he received the bond form, the landlord noticed that he did not have an agreement signed by the tenant’s wife. He drafted an email to the tenant asking for the signed copy but for some reason it was never sent.
Once he realised that the bond form had not been lodged, the landlord deleted the tenant’s wife’s name, so that the bond form matched the tenancy agreement and sent the bond to the bond centre (on 8 March 2023).
Although the bond lodgement form was not in the landlord’s possession until 10 January, it was still some two months before it was lodged so I find they have committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe.
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 under section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Although the bond was lodged late, the landlord provided an explanation and I do not consider that the tenant suffered any loss due to this technical breach of the Act.
The unlawful act was minor and not intentional, so no damages can or should be awarded. Proper notice period
As stated above, there was disagreement between the parties as to whether the tenancy was periodic or fixed and, as a consequence, as to whether the tenancy was ended lawfully by the tenant.
I find that the exchange of text messages on 2 and 3 February 2024 did not create a new fixed term tenancy.
The tenant’s understanding (that this simply extended the time which he had available to find alternative accommodation) was the most obvious and logical conclusion, and the tenant acted in accordance with it.
I have refunded the bond to the tenant accordingly.
However, the tenant acknowledged that he had miscalculated the 28-day notice period.
I have no claim for rent from the landlord and no rent summary to determine to what date rent was paid to so I am unable to make an order in relation to rent but I note that rent should have been paid to 27 March 2024. Filing fee
As [The tenant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Wongeoon Vast Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately in reimbursement of the filing fee.
The applicant’s claim for damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The tenancy started on 5 December 2022. It was for a fixed term to 28 March 2023. The tenancy continued after this date on a periodic basis.
The landlord gave the tenant a 90-day notice that the owner intended to sell the property. The last date of the tenancy was 10 March 2024.
The owner of the property text the tenant on 2 February to say, “[a]re you happy to stay until 19 th May? Two months more?” the tenant replied, “OK”.
The landlord text the tenant the following day to confirm this saying, “the property owner said he told you you could stay at [property address] longer and have 19/05/24 as the last day of the tenancy, correct? If yes, we will do the final inspection and keys handover 9.40am 20 May.”
The tenant replied, “[a]ll good.” And the landlord replied, “[g]reat. That’s confirmed.”
The landlord understood this text exchange as a new fixed term tenancy agreement to 19 May 2024.
The tenant understood it as an extension of the time he had to find alternative accommodation. He considered that the original end date of the 90-day notice, being 10 March, had been pushed out to 19 May.
The tenant subsequently found a new rental property and gave notice by text to the landlord on 28 February. He said he would be moving out on 24 March.
Initially the landlord replied that the tenant had miscalculated the 28 days and that the final date would have to be 26 March and the tenant agreed to pay the additional two days rent (the Tribunal calculates that the final day should have been 27 March 2024).
The following day, the landlord text the tenant again to say that his records showed that the tenant had a fixed term to 19 May so could not leave with 28 days’ notice.
In the text exchange that followed, it is clear that both parties understanding of the situation differed as stated in paragraph 7 and 8 above.
After a reasonably lengthy text exchange the tenant accused the landlord of harassment and said he was going to the Tribunal. The landlord replied that he was welcome to “seek advice from tenancy services”.
The tenant is claiming refund of the bond and $5,000 in compensation for harassment and failure to lodge the bond within the required timeframe. Harassment
[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 under section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 under section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
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).
The landlord gave evidence that he ceased communication with the tenant after the exchange referred to above except in response to the tenant’s communications with him.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, I cannot find that the landlord committed an unlawful act in terms of harassment of the tenant.
The parties understanding of the situation differed and as soon as the tenant said he felt harassed, the landlord ended the exchange.
I have no doubt that this was a stressful event for the tenant and his wife, but the evidence does not support a finding of harassment so no damages, exemplary or general, can or should be awarded. Failure to lodge bond in required timeframe
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received under section 19(1) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord gave evidence, and the tenant agreed, that the signed bond form was not given to the landlord until 10 January 2023. This was because the landlord wanted the tenant’s wife to be included on both the tenancy agreement and the bond form.
When he received the bond form, the landlord noticed that he did not have an agreement signed by the tenant’s wife. He drafted an email to the tenant asking for the signed copy but for some reason it was never sent.
Once he realised that the bond form had not been lodged, the landlord deleted the tenant’s wife’s name, so that the bond form matched the tenancy agreement and sent the bond to the bond centre (on 8 March 2023).
Although the bond lodgement form was not in the landlord’s possession until 10 January, it was still some two months before it was lodged so I find they have committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe.
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 under section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Although the bond was lodged late, the landlord provided an explanation and I do not consider that the tenant suffered any loss due to this technical breach of the Act.
The unlawful act was minor and not intentional, so no damages can or should be awarded. Proper notice period
As stated above, there was disagreement between the parties as to whether the tenancy was periodic or fixed and, as a consequence, as to whether the tenancy was ended lawfully by the tenant.
I find that the exchange of text messages on 2 and 3 February 2024 did not create a new fixed term tenancy.
The tenant’s understanding (that this simply extended the time which he had available to find alternative accommodation) was the most obvious and logical conclusion, and the tenant acted in accordance with it.
I have refunded the bond to the tenant accordingly.
However, the tenant acknowledged that he had miscalculated the 28-day notice period.
I have no claim for rent from the landlord and no rent summary to determine to what date rent was paid to so I am unable to make an order in relation to rent but I note that rent should have been paid to 27 March 2024. Filing fee
As [The tenant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824117 — Harassment at 321 Main South Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824117 — Harassment at 321 Main South Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions