What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4846023 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The

How much money was awarded in case 4846023?

Agreed Break Lease Costs: $956.16 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unreasonable Delays: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4846023?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4846023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10431443-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4846023 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The

How much money was awarded in case 4846023?

Agreed Break Lease Costs: $956.16 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unreasonable Delays: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4846023?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4846023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10431443-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

53 Bale Close, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4846023 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4846023 — net $784.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Agreed break lease costs	$956.16		Agreed break lease costs
Compensation: Unreasonable delays		$720.00	Unreasonable delays
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry x 3		$750.00	Unlawful entry x 3
Exemplary damages: Disposing of tenant's goods		$250.00	Disposing of tenant's goods
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$956.16	$1,740.44
Net award		$784.28
Bond		$2,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$784.28

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Landlords Collective Nz Limited As Agent For S Tan must pay [The tenant/s] $784.28 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 23 July 2023 and ended early by agreement on 17 April 2024.
The tenants seek the following: (a) Compensation of $3,600.00 for unreasonable delays in finding a new tenant. (b) Exemplary damages for unlawful entry. (c) Exemplary damages for landlord unlawfully disposing of their goods.
The tenants have agreed to pay the landlord a lease break fee of $956.16.

Did the landlord unreasonably delay in finding new tenants?

On 19 February 2024, the parties entered into an agreement to end the fixed term early.
The agreement contains the following clause, “The property manager undertakes to use her/his/their best endeavours to achieve the same level of rent but cannot guarantee the same level of rent because rents can vary with the time of year.”
I find it reasonable to imply a similar term that the property manager was to use their best endeavours to secure a suitable tenant without unreasonable delay.
After some viewings, a new tenant was secured, and a new tenancy agreement commenced on 18 April 2024. This was a period of eight weeks and one day from the date of the agreement.
The landlord does not dispute that they failed to advertise the property for one week after the agreement was signed and was only prompted to do so after an email from the tenant.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has unreasonably delayed in finding a new tenant, but only for one week and not for five weeks as claimed by the tenant. I award $720.00 compensation which is equivalent to one weeks’ rent.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord does not dispute that he entered the premises on 3 separate occasions without notifying the tenants. The landlord says that he was mindful the tenants wanted to get the premises rented, so he carried out two viewings and entered a third time with a painter and to carry out the final inspection. The landlord says it slipped his mind to notify the tenants, but he also confirmed that he was aware of his responsibilities.
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) RTA.
Bearing in mind all of the above factors, I award $250.00 exemplary damages for each unlawful entry for a total of $750.00. I have weighed the aggravating factor of the repeated nature of the breach, and the mitigating factors that the tenants had ceased to occupy the premises when the landlord entered, the landlord admitted his actions were unlawful. Did the landlord unlawfully dispose of the tenants’ goods?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord unlawfully disposed of some sewing supplies, sewing patterns and a specialist ruler which they erroneously left in a cupboard in a bedroom. The tenants found the items in a bin outside the premises.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the RTA. See section 33(1) and (4) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord was upfront that he had thrown out the goods thinking it was rubbish. The landlord says he lied because he was embarrassed and he apologised for having told the tenants he had no knowledge, and it must have been the painter.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Although of minimal value, I find that the supplies were clearly not rubbish and should not have been disposed of by the landlord as he did.
Bearing in mind the factors at section 109(3) of the RTA, I award $250.00 exemplary damages. I have taken into account the fact that the tenants were able to retrieve the goods without any damage being caused, and the landlord accepted he was at fault. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
As the tenants have been wholly successful, they are entitled to an order for suppression as of right. The application is granted.
The landlord has not been successful in defence of the claim against them therefore they are not entitled to an order for suppression as of right.
However, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA)
Taking these factors into account, I find no reason why the landlord’s name should not be published; particularly when issues of unlawful entry and unlawful disposal of goods arise.
The landlord application for name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4846023 — net $784.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Agreed break lease costs	$956.16		Agreed break lease costs
Compensation: Unreasonable delays		$720.00	Unreasonable delays
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry x 3		$750.00	Unlawful entry x 3
Exemplary damages: Disposing of tenant's goods		$250.00	Disposing of tenant's goods
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$956.16	$1,740.44
Net award		$784.28
Bond		$2,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$784.28

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Landlords Collective Nz Limited As Agent For S Tan must pay [The tenant/s] $784.28 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 23 July 2023 and ended early by agreement on 17 April 2024.
The tenants seek the following: (a) Compensation of $3,600.00 for unreasonable delays in finding a new tenant. (b) Exemplary damages for unlawful entry. (c) Exemplary damages for landlord unlawfully disposing of their goods.
The tenants have agreed to pay the landlord a lease break fee of $956.16.

Did the landlord unreasonably delay in finding new tenants?

On 19 February 2024, the parties entered into an agreement to end the fixed term early.
The agreement contains the following clause, “The property manager undertakes to use her/his/their best endeavours to achieve the same level of rent but cannot guarantee the same level of rent because rents can vary with the time of year.”
I find it reasonable to imply a similar term that the property manager was to use their best endeavours to secure a suitable tenant without unreasonable delay.
After some viewings, a new tenant was secured, and a new tenancy agreement commenced on 18 April 2024. This was a period of eight weeks and one day from the date of the agreement.
The landlord does not dispute that they failed to advertise the property for one week after the agreement was signed and was only prompted to do so after an email from the tenant.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has unreasonably delayed in finding a new tenant, but only for one week and not for five weeks as claimed by the tenant. I award $720.00 compensation which is equivalent to one weeks’ rent.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord does not dispute that he entered the premises on 3 separate occasions without notifying the tenants. The landlord says that he was mindful the tenants wanted to get the premises rented, so he carried out two viewings and entered a third time with a painter and to carry out the final inspection. The landlord says it slipped his mind to notify the tenants, but he also confirmed that he was aware of his responsibilities.
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) RTA.
Bearing in mind all of the above factors, I award $250.00 exemplary damages for each unlawful entry for a total of $750.00. I have weighed the aggravating factor of the repeated nature of the breach, and the mitigating factors that the tenants had ceased to occupy the premises when the landlord entered, the landlord admitted his actions were unlawful. Did the landlord unlawfully dispose of the tenants’ goods?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord unlawfully disposed of some sewing supplies, sewing patterns and a specialist ruler which they erroneously left in a cupboard in a bedroom. The tenants found the items in a bin outside the premises.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the RTA. See section 33(1) and (4) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord was upfront that he had thrown out the goods thinking it was rubbish. The landlord says he lied because he was embarrassed and he apologised for having told the tenants he had no knowledge, and it must have been the painter.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Although of minimal value, I find that the supplies were clearly not rubbish and should not have been disposed of by the landlord as he did.
Bearing in mind the factors at section 109(3) of the RTA, I award $250.00 exemplary damages. I have taken into account the fact that the tenants were able to retrieve the goods without any damage being caused, and the landlord accepted he was at fault. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
As the tenants have been wholly successful, they are entitled to an order for suppression as of right. The application is granted.
The landlord has not been successful in defence of the claim against them therefore they are not entitled to an order for suppression as of right.
However, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA)
Taking these factors into account, I find no reason why the landlord’s name should not be published; particularly when issues of unlawful entry and unlawful disposal of goods arise.
The landlord application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4846023 — Exemplary damages at 53 Bale Close, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4846023 — Exemplary damages at 53 Bale Close, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord unreasonably delay in finding new tenants?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord unreasonably delay in finding new tenants?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions