What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4878250 about?

The tribunal order states: Fiore On Hobson Limited Harpeet must pay [The tenant/s] $2,240.50

How much money was awarded in case 4878250?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878250?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790803-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4878250 about?

The tribunal order states: Fiore On Hobson Limited Harpeet must pay [The tenant/s] $2,240.50

How much money was awarded in case 4878250?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878250?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790803-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4878250 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878250 — net $2,240.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Balance of bond	$640.50	Balance of bond
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Waste disposal repairs	$600.00	the careless or intentional act of the tenants. The landlord is ordered to pay $600.00 in compensation to the tenants.
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	Unlawful entry
Net award	$2,240.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,240.50

The tenants attended the hearing on 4 September 2024. They were supported by an interpreter. The tenants are all foreign students.

The landlord did not attend the hearing. Bond

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.

The tenants paid a bond of $2.625.00 to the landlord on 12 September 2022.

The tenancy ended on 25 March 2024.

The landlord paid $1,984.50, being a part release of the bond, to the tenants on 3 May 2024.

The landlord has retained the balance of the bond of $640.50. The tenants say that the landlord retained this sum as the landlord considered the tenants responsible for damage to the floor. The tenants’ evidence was that the floor had been damaged prior to the tenancy and that there had been a gradual deterioration as a result of the usual fair wear and tear to the floor over their 18- month tenancy.

The landlord is not entitled to unilaterally deduct funds from the tenants’ bond. The balance of the bond retained by the landlord is to be paid to the tenants.

[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) RTA.

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 RTA.

The landlord has not lodged the bond paid on 12 September 2022. The tenants provided evidence of their enquiries with Tenancy Services regarding the lodgement of the bond. 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) RTA).

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, 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 and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).

The landlord is a property manager and would be well aware of the obligations regarding bonds. It is in the best interests of these tenants and tenants generally for bond money to be held by an independent body. Weighing up all of the circumstances, the landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00. Unlawful entry.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

The landlord wished to conduct a viewing with prospective tenants. The landlord sent a txt message to one of the three tenants at 11.57 am on Monday 11 March 2024, seeking the tenant’s consent to the viewing.

The tenant replied that they were not ready and wanted the viewing done at a different time.

The landlord sent a further txt at 12.01 pm saying that they were at the premises and was asking again for consent. The tenant replied that her flatmate was at home sleeping and that the tenant would call the flatmate at home to see if it was acceptable. She was unable to get a response from her flatmate.

Without receiving consent from any of the tenants, the landlord entered the premises with the prospective tenants and proceeded to show the prospective tenants around.

The sleeping tenant was woken by the sound and dressed and went out into the living area to discover the property manager and two others. The tenant was not surprisingly, very angry. The landlord left and subsequently provided an apology.

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) 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.

Section 48(3)(a) RTA provides that a landlord may enter at any time to show prospective tenants with the prior consent of the tenants. Quite clearly no consent was given.

I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The landlord as a property manager will be aware of the need to comply with the requirements of the Act prior to entering the premises. The landlord has attempted to obtain the necessary consent but has been unable to do so. It is in the best interests of these tenants and tenants generally to have a degree of privacy. The rights of entry for a landlord are clearly stated in the Act.

The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00 to the tenants. Compensation

The tenants say during the tenancy a waste disposal needed repair. The tenants say that there was no specific event which caused the damage and suggest that it was simply fair wear and tear. They were told by the landlord that they would need to pay for the repairs, and they did so at a cost of $600.00. The tenants said that as foreign students they were not sure where the responsibility for repair lay.

A landlord is responsible for repairs required for fair wear and tear issues.

There is no evidence that the need for repair was caused by the careless or intentional act of the tenants. The landlord is ordered to pay $600.00 in compensation to the tenants.

The tenants have been wholly successful in this application and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878250 — net $2,240.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Balance of bond	$640.50	Balance of bond
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Waste disposal repairs	$600.00	the careless or intentional act of the tenants. The landlord is ordered to pay $600.00 in compensation to the tenants.
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	Unlawful entry
Net award	$2,240.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,240.50