What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4863942 about?

The tribunal order states: Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For 1170

How much money was awarded in case 4863942?

Property Damage: $643.09 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863942?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10531746-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4863942 about?

The tribunal order states: Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For 1170

How much money was awarded in case 4863942?

Property Damage: $643.09 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863942?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10531746-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 152 Old Farm Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 4863942 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863942 — net $663.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$643.09	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$663.53
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$663.53

Order

Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For 1170 Rentals Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $663.53 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had the assistance of a Korean interpreter.
[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.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord entered the premises on at least two occasions without the tenant’s consent. 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 had sent the tenant an email with dates and times for five viewings for prospective tenants. The tenant replied that the viewings allocated for 6 March 2024 and 11 March 2024 were not suitable and she did not consent. The landlord email in reply saying that the viewings would be proceeding and that they are legally allowed to enter the house when notice has been given.
Section 48(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants with the prior consent of the tenant.
The landlord did not have the tenant’s prior consent in relation to 6 and 11 March 2024.
On 6 March 2024 the tenant’s husband was not at work but left the premises to check whether the landlord would enter the premises without consent. The tenant said that the landlord did enter at the proposed time of 2.10pm.
On 11 March 2024 the tenant received a text message from a colleague advising that he had entered the premises with the landlord for the purpose of viewing it for rent. The colleague noticed the tenant’s photograph when in the premises.
On 18 March 2024 the landlord had advised the tenant that a viewing for that day was cancelled. Later the landlord advised the tenant that the landlord had carried out a Face Time viewing which still involved the landlord entering the premises. This entry was carried out without the tenant’s consent or prior knowledge.
At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that there had been three occasions of unlawful entry by the landlord.
On 13 March 2024 there was an agreed viewing at 12.20pm. At 10am that day the tenant heard a knock on the door but before she could answer it a key had unlocked the door. It was the landlord coming for an inspection ahead of the viewing. Apparently, the Property Manager thought that notice for this had been sent to the tenant, but no evidence was presented at the hearing. On that occasion the tenant let the landlord in.
There were several occasions where the landlord either entered without consent or failed to give the appropriate notice.
At the hearing the tenant said that as the landlord was a professional property management company they were in a position of power because often tenants request references for subsequent tenancies. The tenant also felt that she had been treated unfairly because English is her second language. She was also upset that the landlord had suggested that it was the tenant who was in breach.
It was only later that the tenant found out that the landlord needed her consent for showing prospective tenants. The tenant said that the landlord needs to take responsibility for the practice.
The landlord said that some changes had been made in relation to the automated emails advising of appointments and training. Also, schedules for viewings are now manually created. The landlord acknowledged that the Property Manager made a mistake.
The landlord has breached the Act. The tenant said that when she learnt that the landlord had entered the premises without the consent of the tenant she was initially upset and then scared. The tenants started hiding items including valuables every day when they went to work. The tenant felt stressed and purchased a security camera to check whether there was any other unlawful entry by the landlord.
On the evidence I consider that an award of exemplary damages should be awarded to confirm that the actions of the landlord were unlawful and has had a negative impact on the tenant. I consider that an award of $643.09 is reasonable. This amount is calculated at one week’s rent being $500.00 and the cost of the security camera which would not have been necessary at the end of the tenancy without the actions of the landlord.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863942 — net $663.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$643.09	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$663.53
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$663.53

Order

Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For 1170 Rentals Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $663.53 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had the assistance of a Korean interpreter.
[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.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord entered the premises on at least two occasions without the tenant’s consent. 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 had sent the tenant an email with dates and times for five viewings for prospective tenants. The tenant replied that the viewings allocated for 6 March 2024 and 11 March 2024 were not suitable and she did not consent. The landlord email in reply saying that the viewings would be proceeding and that they are legally allowed to enter the house when notice has been given.
Section 48(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants with the prior consent of the tenant.
The landlord did not have the tenant’s prior consent in relation to 6 and 11 March 2024.
On 6 March 2024 the tenant’s husband was not at work but left the premises to check whether the landlord would enter the premises without consent. The tenant said that the landlord did enter at the proposed time of 2.10pm.
On 11 March 2024 the tenant received a text message from a colleague advising that he had entered the premises with the landlord for the purpose of viewing it for rent. The colleague noticed the tenant’s photograph when in the premises.
On 18 March 2024 the landlord had advised the tenant that a viewing for that day was cancelled. Later the landlord advised the tenant that the landlord had carried out a Face Time viewing which still involved the landlord entering the premises. This entry was carried out without the tenant’s consent or prior knowledge.
At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that there had been three occasions of unlawful entry by the landlord.
On 13 March 2024 there was an agreed viewing at 12.20pm. At 10am that day the tenant heard a knock on the door but before she could answer it a key had unlocked the door. It was the landlord coming for an inspection ahead of the viewing. Apparently, the Property Manager thought that notice for this had been sent to the tenant, but no evidence was presented at the hearing. On that occasion the tenant let the landlord in.
There were several occasions where the landlord either entered without consent or failed to give the appropriate notice.
At the hearing the tenant said that as the landlord was a professional property management company they were in a position of power because often tenants request references for subsequent tenancies. The tenant also felt that she had been treated unfairly because English is her second language. She was also upset that the landlord had suggested that it was the tenant who was in breach.
It was only later that the tenant found out that the landlord needed her consent for showing prospective tenants. The tenant said that the landlord needs to take responsibility for the practice.
The landlord said that some changes had been made in relation to the automated emails advising of appointments and training. Also, schedules for viewings are now manually created. The landlord acknowledged that the Property Manager made a mistake.
The landlord has breached the Act. The tenant said that when she learnt that the landlord had entered the premises without the consent of the tenant she was initially upset and then scared. The tenants started hiding items including valuables every day when they went to work. The tenant felt stressed and purchased a security camera to check whether there was any other unlawful entry by the landlord.
On the evidence I consider that an award of exemplary damages should be awarded to confirm that the actions of the landlord were unlawful and has had a negative impact on the tenant. I consider that an award of $643.09 is reasonable. This amount is calculated at one week’s rent being $500.00 and the cost of the security camera which would not have been necessary at the end of the tenancy without the actions of the landlord.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863942 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 152 Old Farm Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863942 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 152 Old Farm Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton

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