What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4859900 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4859900?

Compensation: Bond Money: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4859900?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4859900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12783529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4859900 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4859900?

Compensation: Bond Money: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4859900?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4859900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12783529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28A Prangley Avenue, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4859900 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4859900 — net $2,477.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Unlawful termination of tenancy	$2,000.00	Unlawful termination of tenancy
Compensation: Bond money	$450.00	Bond money
Net award	$2,477.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,477.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4859900 — net $2,477.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Unlawful termination of tenancy	$2,000.00	Unlawful termination of tenancy
Compensation: Bond money	$450.00	Bond money
Net award	$2,477.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,477.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Shashi Chandra is to pay Dinesh Singh immediately the sum of $2477.00 for reimbursement of the filing fee , refund of the bond and exemplary damages, as calculated and set out below:
I am dismissing the landlords’ claims.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
There have been two previous hearings regarding these claims. The first hearing was to consider jurisdiction and the hearing on 18 September was to complete the part heard hearing of the substantive claims heard in July 2025.
The landlord is seeking to claim vacated costs for repairs, cleaning, legal fees, and stress. The tenant is claiming that the landlord unlawfully terminated his tenancy, there was no tenancy agreement , nor was the bond lodged with the bond centre and seeks his bond to be refunded.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord and the tenant to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant and Respondent), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Background:
The property was split into two parts, the bottom storey of the house was the tenant’s unit, and the landlord lived upstairs with her family.
The tenancy commenced on 30 January 2022 and terminated on 17 February 2024 after the landlord trespassed the tenant from the property.
The relationship between landlord and tenant had deteriorated due to complaints by the landlord that the tenant was drinking on the premises and exhibiting antisocial behaviour.
The landlord sent the tenant a text message on 6 th February 2024 complaining about his alcohol consumption, family members drinking in the unit until late at night and the untidiness of the unit.
The tenant was verbally told that family members were coming to stay at the property, and he needed to find alternative accommodation.
On 16 th February 2024, the landlord and tenant had a verbal argument, about the tenant looking for alternative accommodation, and the landlord went to the Police station and made a formal complaint. The next day on the 17 th of February 2024 the Police went to the property and the tenant was trespassed and removed from the property immediately.
The tenant was unable to remove his property from the unit until days later when he was accompanied back to the unit by police to remove his possessions.
The landlord seeks to claim vacated costs against the tenant. Landlord claims- Legal costs:
This is a “lay Tribunal” and legal representation, and costs are not generally allowed, as the Tribunal does not award costs to or against any party. There are exceptions, such as when a party is found to have acted unlawfully or when the Tribunal deems it necessary due to the complexity of the issues or significant differences between the parties.( See s102 RTA).
In general, that means that if you engage a lawyer or incur other legal expenses, you are unlikely to be reimbursed by the Tribunal.
I do not consider that there were any significant complexities with these applications, nor claims exceeding $6000.00 that would warrant legal assistance.
I do not find the tenants applications to be frivolous or vexatious and ought not to have been brought.
Part of the process of preparing for a claim in any Tribunal is the presentation of the application, documentation, and evidence. Both parties made applications and both parties shared the same burden of proof.
For the reasons set up above I am not awarding the landlord legal costs.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of his tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice dated 28 February 2024 for $80.00 for carpet cleaning and an invoice dated 1 March 2024 for $172.50 for cleaning.
I am not awarding any cleaning costs as the tenant was summarily removed from the premises and was not given the opportunity to do the cleaning. The landlord can not have the tenant removed and then claim the tenant breached their obligations at the end of their tenancy by not cleaning the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
I am dismissing the landlords claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Window latch was broken. -Scratches and stains on the paint work. -Broken blind.
The landlord has provided a few photos and an invoice for the paint they bought, labour costs and window parts.
The landlord claimed the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However, we have the same situation as the cleaning costs. The tenant was summarily removed from the premises and was not given the opportunity to accept the issues and remedy them before the end of the tenancy.
For these reasons I am dismissing the landlords claim for the cost of damages. Stress:
The landlord seeks compensation for stress. While it is possible, but rare, the Tribunal can award compensation for stress. However, the claim must be for a specific loss caused by the tenant, such as substantial damage or a breach of the RTA that results in stress for the landlord.
I accept that the situation between the tenant and landlord was inherently stressful. But I do not find that the tenant has breached the RTA nor caused substantial damage.
The tenant ended up homeless and threatened with arrest if he tried to return to the property to collect his possessions and the landlord was distressed at the behaviour that she alleges was exhibited by the tenant and his family.
Proof is crucial for the Tribunal when having to make any determination. The landlords claim particularly regarding the alleged anti-social behaviour was lacking in evidence.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven any claims against the tenant.
While I understand the landlord felt involving the police and having the tenant removed without notice was necessary. However, she cannot on the other hand hold the tenant to his obligations under the RTA regarding the standards required when terminating the tenancy. Filing fees for landlord :
As the landlord has not been successful, I am not reimbursing their filing fee. Tenants’ claims
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was unhappy with the tenant’s behaviour, such as drinking alcohol in his unit, having family over in his unit and causing noise and anti-social behaviour.
The landlord states that her flat sharing agreement with the tenant was that he must not drink alcohol in the property nor have loud music, as there were young children living in the property.
The landlord did not give the tenant a notice to terminate the tenancy. She sent a notice for an inspection of the unit in early February 2024. At the inspection she became upset with the standard of cleanliness of the unit. At this time, the landlord verbally told the tenant that her sister was coming to stay for a month or two and she would need the unit. The tenant was told to obtain alternative accommodation.
Two weeks later there was an argument between the landlord and tenant about the progress he had made regarding obtaining alternative accommodation. The next day, on the 16 th of February the landlord went to the police station and made the complaint.
The police located the tenant at the unit the following day and told him he was trespassed immediately from the property and would be arrested if he attempted to return to collect his possessions.
At no time has the landlord given the tenant notice to terminate the premises nor had she applied to the Tribunal for termination and possession of the property.
There was no evidence produced at the hearing to support the claims of late night drinking, loud music, or anti-social behaviour by the tenant.
The landlord sought to terminate the tenancy and did not follow the correct procedures under the RTA to do so. The landlord relies on her contention that this was a flat sharing agreement, but I have already determined that this was a tenancy that would fall under the RTA.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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.
The landlord should have followed the procedures under the RTA to terminate the tenancy. There is a real public interest in ensuring that tenants are treated appropriately and in line with the legislative provisions under the RTA.
This tenant became homeless and was without all his basic property, such as clothing, and personal possessions. The tenant was unaware of who had access to his home and possessions once he was removed from his home.
I consider this a serious breach of the RTA, and the tenant should receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of the Act. I am awarding the sum of $2000 to the tenant. No bond was not lodge with bond centre:
[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. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted that they had not filed the bond within 23 working days. They say they did not intend to commit this breach, and that the tenant’s bond had gone into a bank account.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or did not realise, they had to do so, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01).
In TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the Judge said “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." Para 37.
I have considered awarding the tenant exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, taking into account: •That the breach was for 2 years. •That the tenant was placed in an uncertain position because the landlord did not lodge their bond. •That it is in the public interest to deter landlord’s from failing to lodge bond.
Despite finding that the landlord has committed an unlawful act I am not awarding any exemplary damages given the award for unlawful termination.
The landlord is to immediately refund the sum of $450.00 to the tenant which represents the amount he paid the landlord in bond.

Failure to provide a tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not provide a tenancy agreement in writing nor signed. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The landlord relied on the flat sharing agreement which she says gave to the tenant at the start of the tenancy.
While I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act, I am not awarding exemplary damages given the circumstances of the mistaken belief that this was a flat sharing and the previous award for unlawful termination of the tenancy. Filing Fee/Suppression:
Because Shashi Chandra has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applies for non-publication of their 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.
I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Non-publication of the tenant’s name is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4859900 — Exemplary damages at 28A Prangley Avenue, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4859900 — Exemplary damages at 28A Prangley Avenue, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Failure to provide a tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Failure to provide a tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions