What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862071 about?

The tribunal order states: Vijay Sagar and Preeta Devi must pay [the tenant] $9,587.12 immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4862071?

Compensation: No cooking facilities…: $42.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No Oven From 14 March: $614.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful termination n…: $2,142.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,166.67 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862071?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10644898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862071 about?

The tribunal order states: Vijay Sagar and Preeta Devi must pay [the tenant] $9,587.12 immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4862071?

Compensation: No cooking facilities…: $42.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No Oven From 14 March: $614.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful termination n…: $2,142.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,166.67 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862071?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10644898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862071 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862071 — net $9,587.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$1,000.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Interference with gas services	$1,200.00	Interference with gas services
Compensation: No cooking facilities from 14 to 17 March 2024	$42.86	No cooking facilities from 14 to 17 March 2024
Compensation: No oven from 14 March to 26 April 2024	$614.29	No oven from 14 March to 26 April 2024
Compensation: Unlawful termination notice	$2,142.86	Unlawful termination notice
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$2,166.67	Retaliatory notice
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide adequate cooking facilities	$2,400.00	Failure to provide adequate cooking facilities
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,587.12
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$9,587.12

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862071 — net $9,587.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$1,000.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Interference with gas services	$1,200.00	Interference with gas services
Compensation: No cooking facilities from 14 to 17 March 2024	$42.86	No cooking facilities from 14 to 17 March 2024
Compensation: No oven from 14 March to 26 April 2024	$614.29	No oven from 14 March to 26 April 2024
Compensation: Unlawful termination notice	$2,142.86	Unlawful termination notice
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$2,166.67	Retaliatory notice
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide adequate cooking facilities	$2,400.00	Failure to provide adequate cooking facilities
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,587.12
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$9,587.12

Order

Vijay Sagar and Preeta Devi must pay [the tenant] $9,587.12 immediately calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not.
I am satisfied that the landlord had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord contacted the Tribunal requesting he attend the hearing via teleconference, and he provided two phone numbers for the Tribunal to contact him on. His application to appear by telephone was granted, but when the Tribunal tried to bring him into the hearing, it found one number was no longer in service and one went to an automatic message saying the person was unable to answer the call. The Tribunal tried to contact the landlord on that number three times over a 20-minute period. The landlord was also emailed the phone number of the courtroom that he could call into to attend the hearing and he did not avail himself of that option.
The tenant sought compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. Failure to lodge the bond
[The tenant] claims the landlords have 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 landlords are required to ensure the tenant’s bond is lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 days of her receipt of the bond. The landlords never lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. I find the landlords 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.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants. I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after her receipt of it.
The landlords could have sought advice from the Tenancy Services website and/or the Call Centre. The website contains bond forms and other such resources that the landlord could have used to inform them of what to do with the bond.
The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlords to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after 20 July 2023 and never lodged the bond with the Bond Centre, even after the tenant made her application to the Tribunal highlighting this breach; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting her bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owed the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 281 days, from 20 July 2023 and 26 April 2024 days, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenants’ knowledge of who held their bond. When the tenancy ended abruptly and unlawfully, the tenant called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released at the end of her tenancy and that was the first she knew that the bond had never been lodged; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
Given the seriousness and length of the breach I find the quantum of two thirds of the maximum $1,500.00 penalty amount to be fair and reasonable. Unlawful notice
On 3 April 2024 the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 3 May 2024, being 30 days’ notice.
The reason given for the notice is that the landlord had sold the property and the purchaser, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, required vacant possession.
The tenant claims the notice is a breach of the landlords obligations, pursuant to s45(2)(b) of the RTA, which requires the landlord to give the tenant 90 days’ notice under these circumstances.
The landlords had notified the tenant the house was for sale. He should have, but did not, give her 90 days’ notice the premises were being put on the market within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition. Refer to s45(2)(a) of the RTA.
The tenant informed me that she has a 2-year-old daughter with health issues and no family she could go to stay with or get support from. Further, she stated that the new owner would only agree to her having the full 90 days to move out on the condition she paid an additional $100.00 per week rent from possession day, being 3 May 2024.
The tenant says she did not agree to the rent increase as her tenancy had not been 12 months in duration and she wanted the landlord to sort things out with the new owner as it was the landlord’s breach of his s45(2) of the RTA obligations that meant she had to find somewhere to live in a matter of a few weeks. She says the landlord lived in the main house on the same premise and harassed her everyday about moving out by 3 May 2024 or she would stop the sale and purchase with the new owner settling on settlement date. She says she was blessed that due to her daughter’s significant health issues a social housing provider was able to put her on the top of the emergency waiting list. Had this not been the case, her and her daughter would have been left being homeless.
The tenant was forced to apply for emergency housing from a social housing provider as she had nowhere else to go. This was very stressful for her and her 2-year-old child, who has significant health issues.
I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenant compensation for the stress and inconvenience she suffered because of the landlord’s breach of the requirement to give her 90 days’ notice. I award the tenant compensation of $2,142.86, based on a rent rebate of $250.00 per week for the additional 60- day period, from 3 May 2024 to 2 July 2024, that the landlord failed to give her the required notice to the tenant. Retaliatory notice
On 17 April 2024, the landlords gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 17 July 2024. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlords were motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlords. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlords disconnected her gas to her oven and stove top on 14 March 2024 and that it remained disconnected. She was left with no cooking facilities from 14 to 17 March 2024, after which she was provided with a two- burner relocatable electric stove and no oven. When the tenant raised her concerns about this and how it breached his obligations to her as a landlords, the landlords confirmed that the new owner did not want gad cooking in the unit and had required it to be removed before settlement date on 3 May 2024. The tenant made her application to the Tribunal to exercise her rights under the RTA. The landlords sent the 90-day termination notice the following day. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so considering the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord issuing the 90-day notice was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
The tenant says the landlord became upset when she lodged her application to the Tribunal and blocked all further communication with her and then sent the notice terminating her tenancy and a communication informing her that all communications about the rent increase had to had between her and the new owner but would not provide her with the new owner’s contact details. Further he had made it clear to her the new owner wanted her out as he wanted vacant possession, and the landlord conveyed his annoyance to the tenant that if she did not move out by 3 May 2024 that settlement could be delayed and he wanted to sell the house as he and his wife had separated and he intended to relocate to Australia at the end of 2024.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $2,166.67 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord did not provide the tenant with 90 days’ notice at the time he was putting the house on the market and then when he wanted a settlement date that did not allow for 90 days’ notice for vacant possession, he tried to harass the tenant into agreeing to a lesser notice period of 30 days. When she refused to accept notice of less than 90 days and made a claim with the Tribunal, he gave her 90 days’ notice partially in retaliation for her trying to exercise her statutory rights and the potential impact of her exercising those rights on his sale and purchase agreement with the prospective new owner; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the landlord giving her and her daughter 90 days’ notice that their tenancy was coming to an end as he was selling the property and not to leave the giving of notice until after a settlement date had been agreed with the new owner that did not allow for the tenant to be given 90 days’ notice of the termination if her tenancy. When the tenant tried to exercise hr rights, the landlord gave her a retaliatory termination notice after harassing her to leave the premise by the settlement date had failed; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to give her 90 days termination notice so she had adequate time to find alternative accommodation for her and her daughter; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations give tenants the statutory notice period required to end a tenancy.
Given the seriousness of the breach and the significant impact on the tenant and her daughter as they struggled to find emergency housing in a short 30-day period, I find the quantum of one third of the maximum $6,500.00 penalty amount to be fair and reasonable. Interference with gas supply
[The tenant] claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by having the gas supply to her home cut off on 14 March 2024, so as to remove the gas oven and cook top, without adequate notice to the tenant and without providing her with any way to boil food for 3 days and without any way to bake food for 6 weeks and 1 day.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has provided evidence the gas supply to her home was cut off on 14 March 2024, without adequate notice to the tenant and without providing her with any way to boil food for 3 days and without any way to bake food for 6 weeks and 1 day 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.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,200.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord did not provide the tenant adequate notice at the time he cut off the gas and did not have a new electric stove top and oven put in in a timely manner, nor did he compensate her for this loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience. She says he said the new owner wanted it taken out but he could have left having that done until the new owner took possession of the property and/or when the tenant moved out; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the continuance of gas services to her home to power her oven and stive top and not to have those services abruptly cut off without sufficient notice and without alternative cooking facilities being provided to her; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to not interfere with her gas services; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations not to interfere with gas services to a rental premise.
Given the seriousness of the breach and the significant impact on the tenant and her daughter, I find the quantum of two thirds of the maximum $1,800.00 penalty amount to be fair and reasonable. Failure to provide adequate cooking facilities
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) sets out the national minimum standards that a landlord must meet.
Section 7(2)(b) of the HIR confirms a landlord must provide a way for food to be cooked by both boiling and baking, usually an oven with a cooktop.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA also provides that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. This includes but is not limited to the obligations set out in the HIR.
Breaching the landlord’s obligation to meet his obligations in respect of cleanliness, maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health, and safety requirement is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenant compensation for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience she suffered because of the landlord’s breach of the requirement to provide her with a way to boil and bake. I specifically note that she was unable to cook her 2-year-old a birthday cake in her own home because of the landlord’s breach and that she was put to the additional expense of having to purchase one.
I award the tenant compensation of $42.86 for the 3 days she had no stove top cooking facilities, being 14 to 17 March 2024, based on a rent rebate of $100.00 per week.
I also award the tenant further compensation of $614.29 for the 6 weeks and 1 day she had no baking facilities, being 14 March 2024 to 26 April 2024, based on a rent rebate of $100.00 per week. Unlawful rent increase
The landlords conveyed to the tenant, on 3 April 2024, the new owner of the property intended on increasing her rent by $100.00 per week from possession date, being 3 May 2024.
Section 24(1)(d) of the RTA confirms a tenant’s rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant informed the landlords her rent could not be increased until her tenancy had been 12 months duration, and that as her tenancy began on 20 July 2023, her rent could not be increased until after 17 July 2024.
The tenancy with the landlord would have ended on 3 May 2024, possession date for the new owner. If the new owner was agreeable to the tenant staying on post the settlement date, the new owner would have had to enter into a new tenancy agreement with the tenant and that new tenancy agreement could have included an increase in rent.
The evidence shows the landlords were trying to broker a deal with the new owner so the sale and purchase of the premise would go ahead and the tenant would still be able to have 90 days to find a new home. The landlords conveyed to the tenant the condition the new owner had given him was that if the tenant would agree to the rent increase the new owner would allow her to remain in the premise until 90 days after 3 April 2024 termination notice she had been given terminating her tenancy.
The tenant has no claim against the new owner of the property and the landlords were not the party increasing the rent. They were a conduit between the new owner and the tenant, trying to find a way to appease both parties because they had failed to issue the tenant with a notice terminating her tenancy that allowed them to give the new owners vacant possession on the agreed settlement date. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for an unlawful rent increase for lack of evidence to prove her claim. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [the applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her 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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862071 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862071 — Exemplary damages

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