What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4838150?

The tribunal order states: Carol Phillips must pay Mike Charles Smith $520.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4838150?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838150?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10464372-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4838150?

The tribunal order states: Carol Phillips must pay Mike Charles Smith $520.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4838150?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838150?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10464372-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42A Mahuta Station Road, RD 1, Huntly 3771 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838150 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838150. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Fail to lodge bond	$500.00		Fail to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Carol Phillips must pay Mike Charles Smith $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the two hearings and both the landlord and tenant have made applications to the Tribunal.
This is the final order and records all decisions. Termination of the tenancy
The landlord has given the tenant 90 days’ written notice to terminate the tenancy on 14 June 2024 on the grounds that extensive renovations are needed, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to live there while these are being done.
The evidence provided by the landlord satisfies me that the landlord does intend to do renovations to the sheds next door and that these mean that the tenancy unit will have no power or water for an extended period.
The tenant also said that he wants to move out because of the problems that have arisen.
I made an order after the first hearing confirming that the tenancy would terminate at 2:00pm on 14 June 2024.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The tenant says that the landlord did not lodge the bond.
The tenancy started on 15 November 2023. The bond of $560.00 was not lodged until the second week of April 2024.
My decision is that the landlord has breached section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This requires a landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages (a fine) up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy has now ended, and the bond has been refunded to the tenant in full.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages. He says that he asked the landlord in December 2023 why the bond wasn’t lodged but that she still did not lodge it.
The landlord agrees that she did not lodge the bond within the time required. She says that she was confused about the documentation that she needed to send to the Bond Centre.
The landlord made a deliberate decision not to lodge the bond. When the tenant asked her about it, she should have checked what her legal obligations were.
I am required to consider the below mandatory factors: a. Intent: the landlord says she made a mistake and was confused about her legal obligations. It is not an excuse to say that you don’t know the law. The landlord had plenty of opportunity to find out and information from Tenancy Services is free and readily available online. b. Effect: the tenant has now received his bond back. However, for most of the tenancy his money (the bond) was under the control of the landlord. This reduces a tenant’s rights. c. Interests of the tenant: are that their bond money is secure at the independent Bond Centre. d. Public interest: that landlords make sure they know their obligations and lodge all bonds so that any dispute is managed by the Tribunal.
It is just to award exemplary damages of $500.00 which is at the lower end of the range as there is no evidence that this has happened before. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s privacy or quiet enjoyment?
The tenant said that the landlord had breached his privacy or quiet enjoyment as there were often people coming and going and asking him to move his car.
I said in the first hearing that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment or privacy.
The landlord lives on the same property and uses sheds which are next to the tenancy unit. The tenant knew that this was the arrangement and so must expect that the landlord and family/friends will be at the sheds from time to time.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant breach the tenancy agreement?

The landlord said in her application that the tenant breached the tenancy agreement by not mowing the lawn often enough, not always shutting the main gate into the property, and not always putting his rubbish out at the main gate.
These issues were all noted in the tenancy agreement and are reasonable.
I did not make orders requiring the tenant to comply with these terms because the tenancy was due to end soon. Compliance of the tenancy unit
The tenancy unit is on the end of a line of modern metal-clad sheds.
It was initially unclear whether the unit is consented to be used as a separate dwelling and has met electrical, plumbing and insulation requirements.
The landlord has now provided information from the council file that satisfies me that a code of compliance certificate was issued for the sheds in 2007 and that the consent was amended to include a habitable area and bathroom.
It is not clear that a kitchen was part of the consent although there appears to be a sink on the original consent plan. The landlord says she could not find an amended plan on the council file.
Compliance documents for insulation, electrical work, and plumbing work have been provided.
The tenant said that his only concern was that the rangehood is not ducted externally. The landlord says that it is a recirculating unit and that council officers have told her that this is all that was required at the time that it was installed.
There are gaps in the evidence however I have decided to accept that it is more probable than not that the unit can be lawfully occupied for residential purposes because of the compliance documents that have been supplied.
However, I recommend the landlord persists with the council to make sure that it is satisfied that the unit complies with the building code and any other requirements for use as a separate household unit. See section 115 of the Building Act 2004. Filing fee and suppression of names
The tenant raised a valid concern about the bond so the landlord must pay his filing fee.
Neither party has been substantially successful so neither is entitled to suppression of name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838150. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Fail to lodge bond	$500.00		Fail to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Carol Phillips must pay Mike Charles Smith $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the two hearings and both the landlord and tenant have made applications to the Tribunal.
This is the final order and records all decisions. Termination of the tenancy
The landlord has given the tenant 90 days’ written notice to terminate the tenancy on 14 June 2024 on the grounds that extensive renovations are needed, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to live there while these are being done.
The evidence provided by the landlord satisfies me that the landlord does intend to do renovations to the sheds next door and that these mean that the tenancy unit will have no power or water for an extended period.
The tenant also said that he wants to move out because of the problems that have arisen.
I made an order after the first hearing confirming that the tenancy would terminate at 2:00pm on 14 June 2024.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

The tenant says that the landlord did not lodge the bond.
The tenancy started on 15 November 2023. The bond of $560.00 was not lodged until the second week of April 2024.
My decision is that the landlord has breached section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This requires a landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages (a fine) up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy has now ended, and the bond has been refunded to the tenant in full.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages. He says that he asked the landlord in December 2023 why the bond wasn’t lodged but that she still did not lodge it.
The landlord agrees that she did not lodge the bond within the time required. She says that she was confused about the documentation that she needed to send to the Bond Centre.
The landlord made a deliberate decision not to lodge the bond. When the tenant asked her about it, she should have checked what her legal obligations were.
I am required to consider the below mandatory factors: a. Intent: the landlord says she made a mistake and was confused about her legal obligations. It is not an excuse to say that you don’t know the law. The landlord had plenty of opportunity to find out and information from Tenancy Services is free and readily available online. b. Effect: the tenant has now received his bond back. However, for most of the tenancy his money (the bond) was under the control of the landlord. This reduces a tenant’s rights. c. Interests of the tenant: are that their bond money is secure at the independent Bond Centre. d. Public interest: that landlords make sure they know their obligations and lodge all bonds so that any dispute is managed by the Tribunal.
It is just to award exemplary damages of $500.00 which is at the lower end of the range as there is no evidence that this has happened before. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s privacy or quiet enjoyment?
The tenant said that the landlord had breached his privacy or quiet enjoyment as there were often people coming and going and asking him to move his car.
I said in the first hearing that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment or privacy.
The landlord lives on the same property and uses sheds which are next to the tenancy unit. The tenant knew that this was the arrangement and so must expect that the landlord and family/friends will be at the sheds from time to time.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant breach the tenancy agreement?

The landlord said in her application that the tenant breached the tenancy agreement by not mowing the lawn often enough, not always shutting the main gate into the property, and not always putting his rubbish out at the main gate.
These issues were all noted in the tenancy agreement and are reasonable.
I did not make orders requiring the tenant to comply with these terms because the tenancy was due to end soon. Compliance of the tenancy unit
The tenancy unit is on the end of a line of modern metal-clad sheds.
It was initially unclear whether the unit is consented to be used as a separate dwelling and has met electrical, plumbing and insulation requirements.
The landlord has now provided information from the council file that satisfies me that a code of compliance certificate was issued for the sheds in 2007 and that the consent was amended to include a habitable area and bathroom.
It is not clear that a kitchen was part of the consent although there appears to be a sink on the original consent plan. The landlord says she could not find an amended plan on the council file.
Compliance documents for insulation, electrical work, and plumbing work have been provided.
The tenant said that his only concern was that the rangehood is not ducted externally. The landlord says that it is a recirculating unit and that council officers have told her that this is all that was required at the time that it was installed.
There are gaps in the evidence however I have decided to accept that it is more probable than not that the unit can be lawfully occupied for residential purposes because of the compliance documents that have been supplied.
However, I recommend the landlord persists with the council to make sure that it is satisfied that the unit complies with the building code and any other requirements for use as a separate household unit. See section 115 of the Building Act 2004. Filing fee and suppression of names
The tenant raised a valid concern about the bond so the landlord must pay his filing fee.
Neither party has been substantially successful so neither is entitled to suppression of name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838150 — Exemplary damages at 42A Mahuta Station Road, RD 1, Huntly 3771

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838150 — Exemplary damages at 42A Mahuta Station Road, RD 1, Huntly 3771

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the tenant breach the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the tenant breach the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions