What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861500 about?

The tribunal order states: Aurelius Fernandes and Shilpa Fernandes must pay [The tenant/s] $2,445.44

How much money was awarded in case 4861500?

Compensation: Unlawful Key Money: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,925.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861500?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10675510-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861500 about?

The tribunal order states: Aurelius Fernandes and Shilpa Fernandes must pay [The tenant/s] $2,445.44

How much money was awarded in case 4861500?

Compensation: Unlawful Key Money: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,925.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861500?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10675510-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Waltham Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4861500 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4861500 — net $2,445.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Notice to terminate without grounds	$1,925.00	Notice to terminate without grounds
Compensation: Unlawful key money	$500.00	Unlawful key money
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,445.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,445.44

Order

Aurelius Fernandes and Shilpa Fernandes must pay [The tenant/s] $2,445.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 31 January 2024 and ended on 10 March 2024.
The tenancy is the downstairs area of the premises. The landlord occupies the upstairs area. The downstairs comprised of two bedrooms and another small room, together with a kitchenette, lounge and bathroom. The tenant did not access the upstairs area and the landlord said that they did not access the downstairs area unless consent was obtained from the tenants.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement on 31 January 2024. The weekly rent was $460.00 with a bond of $1,840.00.
The landlord claims that this is not a tenancy and instead it is a flat sharing arrangement. The landlord says that a tenancy agreement was signed because the tenant asked for one. I see no evidence to support this.
I need to take account that the tenancy agreement is record of the nature of the parties relationship, being landlord and tenant. However, even if the tenancy agreement did not exist the issue to determine is whether the relationship is a flat sharing relationship. When parties are flatmates there is usually a co- operative arrangement where all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.
Taking account of all the evidence I do not accept that this is a flat sharing arrangement and instead it is a tenancy which is subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has requested ‘key money’.
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had asked for the tenant to pay $250.00 for each of the two weeks prior to the start of the tenancy. I find that this amounts to a request for key money, and is 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 (s 109(3) RTA).
The tenant paid $500.00 before the tenancy began. There is no reason for this money to be paid and it should be reimbursed to the tenant. The landlord’s explanation was that the tenancy was to begin earlier and that is why the money was paid. However, the tenancy agreement confirms the date of commencement, and the payment was before that date and in addition to the rent and bond paid. I consider it reasonable that this money is reimbursed to the tenant.
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 gave the tenant two weeks’ notice to vacate the tenancy. The notice was sent on 26 February 2024. No reason was given for the notice although there had been some disagreement between the parties in relation to the landlord’s dog. The tenant moved out on 10 March 2024, 13 days after the notice was given. 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 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 said that when the tenant queried the amount of notice given it was agreed that they could remain for 90 days. There was no evidence to support this claim. The landlord was made aware of the legislation but continued to require the tenant to leave after two weeks’ notice.
The tenant said that after receiving the notice she needed to urgently locate alternate accommodation. She had started a new job a week before the notice was given so struggled with getting time off work to look for a new place. Also, her husband had just arrived in New Zealand on 3 February 2024. With such short notice the tenant managed to find a place to rent in South Auckland, but the rent was $175.00 more than she was paying for this tenancy.
The notice given by the landlord was unlawful because it did not comply with the Residential Tenancies Act in relation to the amount of notice time given and the absence of a reason for the notice. The tenant has paid more rent for the period where she should have been able to remain in the premises. I have awarded damages taking account of the extra weekly amount she has paid for the 90-day period from when she left the tenancy. That amounts to $175.00 for 11 weeks being $1,925.00.
The tenant had claimed that the landlord did not lodge the bond. The landlord acknowledged not lodging the bond but said that she would have if the tenant asked her to.
It is not for the tenant to request that the bond be lodged. I have not awarded exemplary damages in relation to the failure to lodge the bond because the tenancy only lasted for 39 days, and the bond was refunded on the day that the tenancy ended.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s name as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4861500 — net $2,445.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Notice to terminate without grounds	$1,925.00	Notice to terminate without grounds
Compensation: Unlawful key money	$500.00	Unlawful key money
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,445.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,445.44

Order

Aurelius Fernandes and Shilpa Fernandes must pay [The tenant/s] $2,445.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 31 January 2024 and ended on 10 March 2024.
The tenancy is the downstairs area of the premises. The landlord occupies the upstairs area. The downstairs comprised of two bedrooms and another small room, together with a kitchenette, lounge and bathroom. The tenant did not access the upstairs area and the landlord said that they did not access the downstairs area unless consent was obtained from the tenants.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement on 31 January 2024. The weekly rent was $460.00 with a bond of $1,840.00.
The landlord claims that this is not a tenancy and instead it is a flat sharing arrangement. The landlord says that a tenancy agreement was signed because the tenant asked for one. I see no evidence to support this.
I need to take account that the tenancy agreement is record of the nature of the parties relationship, being landlord and tenant. However, even if the tenancy agreement did not exist the issue to determine is whether the relationship is a flat sharing relationship. When parties are flatmates there is usually a co- operative arrangement where all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.
Taking account of all the evidence I do not accept that this is a flat sharing arrangement and instead it is a tenancy which is subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has requested ‘key money’.
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had asked for the tenant to pay $250.00 for each of the two weeks prior to the start of the tenancy. I find that this amounts to a request for key money, and is 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 (s 109(3) RTA).
The tenant paid $500.00 before the tenancy began. There is no reason for this money to be paid and it should be reimbursed to the tenant. The landlord’s explanation was that the tenancy was to begin earlier and that is why the money was paid. However, the tenancy agreement confirms the date of commencement, and the payment was before that date and in addition to the rent and bond paid. I consider it reasonable that this money is reimbursed to the tenant.
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 gave the tenant two weeks’ notice to vacate the tenancy. The notice was sent on 26 February 2024. No reason was given for the notice although there had been some disagreement between the parties in relation to the landlord’s dog. The tenant moved out on 10 March 2024, 13 days after the notice was given. 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 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 said that when the tenant queried the amount of notice given it was agreed that they could remain for 90 days. There was no evidence to support this claim. The landlord was made aware of the legislation but continued to require the tenant to leave after two weeks’ notice.
The tenant said that after receiving the notice she needed to urgently locate alternate accommodation. She had started a new job a week before the notice was given so struggled with getting time off work to look for a new place. Also, her husband had just arrived in New Zealand on 3 February 2024. With such short notice the tenant managed to find a place to rent in South Auckland, but the rent was $175.00 more than she was paying for this tenancy.
The notice given by the landlord was unlawful because it did not comply with the Residential Tenancies Act in relation to the amount of notice time given and the absence of a reason for the notice. The tenant has paid more rent for the period where she should have been able to remain in the premises. I have awarded damages taking account of the extra weekly amount she has paid for the 90-day period from when she left the tenancy. That amounts to $175.00 for 11 weeks being $1,925.00.
The tenant had claimed that the landlord did not lodge the bond. The landlord acknowledged not lodging the bond but said that she would have if the tenant asked her to.
It is not for the tenant to request that the bond be lodged. I have not awarded exemplary damages in relation to the failure to lodge the bond because the tenancy only lasted for 39 days, and the bond was refunded on the day that the tenancy ended.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s name as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4861500 — Exemplary damages at 12 Waltham Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4861500 — Exemplary damages at 12 Waltham Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612

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