What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4881031 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat C, 13 Horace

How much money was awarded in case 4881031?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4881031?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4881031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10405339-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4881031 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat C, 13 Horace

How much money was awarded in case 4881031?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4881031?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4881031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10405339-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat C, 13 Horace Street, Cromwell, Otago 9310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4881031 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4881031 — net $1,320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 May 2024	$400.00		Rent arrears to 3 May 2024
Refund of bond (unlodged		$1,200.00	Refund of bond (unlodged
Exemplary damages: non lodgment of bond		$500.00	non lodgment of bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$400.00	$1,720.44
Net award		$1,320.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,320.44

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat C, 13 Horace Street, Cromwell, Otago 9310 is reduced and now ends on 3 May 2024.
Russell Allan Dannefaerd must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44 immediately as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties to the tenancy agreement of the downstairs unit of 13C Horace Street, Cromwell, Otago 9310 are Russell Allan Dannefaerd as landlord and Josie McPhail and Reece Holz as tenant.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 27 January 2024 to 27 July 2024; the weekly rent is $400.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. The landlord has applied for rent arrears until the end of the fixed term.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances which the landlord accepted. The tenant found the downstairs unit to be unsuitable for them as a couple, ie., lack of space; the tenant also wanted to find cheaper accommodation.
On 1 April 2024, the tenant texted the landlord advising that they found a house which they were very interested in. The tenant enquired whether they could give 28 days’ notice to which the landlord replied that the tenancy was for a 6- months fixed term but the landlord would be happy for them to move out sooner if they can find a suitable tenant either for the rest of their term or were happy to engage in a new 6 month agreement.
The landlord texted at 11.18am on 1 April 2024 conceding that “yes I imagine it would get a bit cramped in there” and “that place is much better suited to one person”.
The landlord initially tried to change the terms for relet to $450 for a single person and $500 for a couple. After being pointed out by the tenant that the landlord must not set more onerous conditions to the existing terms of their fixed term tenancy, the landlord yielded and agreed to “keep pricing the same to carry on their tenancy duration.”
I consider that the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced in that they would have to pay double rent after securing the new tenancy elsewhere. I consider that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship of not having the current tenant stay until the end of the fixed term on 27 July 2024.
Having heard from both parties and considering the evidence adduced, I find that the landlord has unreasonably limited the pool of available replacement tenants and therefore failed to mitigate their own loss.
The landlord’s fiancé texted the tenant on 25 April 2024 that “after hearing that you are not happy in the flat, we have decided a couple is probably not the best fit”. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that there were a few couples from the list of prospective replacement tenants provided by the tenants to date. Those couples were deemed “unsuitable” simply because they were couples and therefore rejected outright.
I consider that the landlord had acted unreasonably in limiting the pool of prospective tenants in the circumstances. As it were, both the current tenants are a couple and the landlord’s decision to only limit the pool to single occupants has impacted on the early re-letting of the premises to both parties’ detriment.
For those reasons, I find that the fixed-term tenancy should be reduced.
By email dated 30 April 2024, the tenant advised that they moved out of the unit on Saturday (27 April) and “still provided yet another potential tenant for you as well as an additional week’s rent”. The tenant submits that “the rent we have paid will take you through to this Saturday (4 May) when the next tenants are ready to move in”.
While the tenant was under the impression that the rent has been paid to 4 May 2024, I find from the landlord’s rent summary that the rent was only paid to 26 April 2024. I consider that the rent should be paid until 3 May 2024 in the circumstances, and I reduce the fixed term tenancy to that date.
Considering the rent summary and the fixed term tenancy being reduced to 3 May 2024, the tenant is in arrears of one week’s rent and I order the final week’s rent to be paid accordingly as set out in the above table.
Finally, the landlord accepts that he has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre at all.
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.
By failing to lodge the bond, 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.
The landlord’s explanation is that he thought he had lodged the bond until being told by Tenancy Services on filing the counterclaim at the Tribunal that he hadn’t.
I do not accept the landlord’s explanation. The RTA places a positive obligation on the landlord to lodge the bond when the landlord receives it. The tenancy agreement that the parties signed makes it clear that the landlord must do so within 23 working days.
Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the tenant to know that their bond is safe and secure with the bond centre, and the public interest that all bonds are lodged within the prescribed timeframe, I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages against the landlord of $500.00.
Based on the above findings, the bond should be now returned to the tenant as set out in the table above which also includes the rent shortfall, exemplary damages order and filing fee to be reimbursed to the tenant.
The tenant being largely successful in their claim, are entitled to an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4881031 — net $1,320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 May 2024	$400.00		Rent arrears to 3 May 2024
Refund of bond (unlodged		$1,200.00	Refund of bond (unlodged
Exemplary damages: non lodgment of bond		$500.00	non lodgment of bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$400.00	$1,720.44
Net award		$1,320.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,320.44

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat C, 13 Horace Street, Cromwell, Otago 9310 is reduced and now ends on 3 May 2024.
Russell Allan Dannefaerd must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44 immediately as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties to the tenancy agreement of the downstairs unit of 13C Horace Street, Cromwell, Otago 9310 are Russell Allan Dannefaerd as landlord and Josie McPhail and Reece Holz as tenant.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 27 January 2024 to 27 July 2024; the weekly rent is $400.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. The landlord has applied for rent arrears until the end of the fixed term.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances which the landlord accepted. The tenant found the downstairs unit to be unsuitable for them as a couple, ie., lack of space; the tenant also wanted to find cheaper accommodation.
On 1 April 2024, the tenant texted the landlord advising that they found a house which they were very interested in. The tenant enquired whether they could give 28 days’ notice to which the landlord replied that the tenancy was for a 6- months fixed term but the landlord would be happy for them to move out sooner if they can find a suitable tenant either for the rest of their term or were happy to engage in a new 6 month agreement.
The landlord texted at 11.18am on 1 April 2024 conceding that “yes I imagine it would get a bit cramped in there” and “that place is much better suited to one person”.
The landlord initially tried to change the terms for relet to $450 for a single person and $500 for a couple. After being pointed out by the tenant that the landlord must not set more onerous conditions to the existing terms of their fixed term tenancy, the landlord yielded and agreed to “keep pricing the same to carry on their tenancy duration.”
I consider that the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced in that they would have to pay double rent after securing the new tenancy elsewhere. I consider that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship of not having the current tenant stay until the end of the fixed term on 27 July 2024.
Having heard from both parties and considering the evidence adduced, I find that the landlord has unreasonably limited the pool of available replacement tenants and therefore failed to mitigate their own loss.
The landlord’s fiancé texted the tenant on 25 April 2024 that “after hearing that you are not happy in the flat, we have decided a couple is probably not the best fit”. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that there were a few couples from the list of prospective replacement tenants provided by the tenants to date. Those couples were deemed “unsuitable” simply because they were couples and therefore rejected outright.
I consider that the landlord had acted unreasonably in limiting the pool of prospective tenants in the circumstances. As it were, both the current tenants are a couple and the landlord’s decision to only limit the pool to single occupants has impacted on the early re-letting of the premises to both parties’ detriment.
For those reasons, I find that the fixed-term tenancy should be reduced.
By email dated 30 April 2024, the tenant advised that they moved out of the unit on Saturday (27 April) and “still provided yet another potential tenant for you as well as an additional week’s rent”. The tenant submits that “the rent we have paid will take you through to this Saturday (4 May) when the next tenants are ready to move in”.
While the tenant was under the impression that the rent has been paid to 4 May 2024, I find from the landlord’s rent summary that the rent was only paid to 26 April 2024. I consider that the rent should be paid until 3 May 2024 in the circumstances, and I reduce the fixed term tenancy to that date.
Considering the rent summary and the fixed term tenancy being reduced to 3 May 2024, the tenant is in arrears of one week’s rent and I order the final week’s rent to be paid accordingly as set out in the above table.
Finally, the landlord accepts that he has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre at all.
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.
By failing to lodge the bond, 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.
The landlord’s explanation is that he thought he had lodged the bond until being told by Tenancy Services on filing the counterclaim at the Tribunal that he hadn’t.
I do not accept the landlord’s explanation. The RTA places a positive obligation on the landlord to lodge the bond when the landlord receives it. The tenancy agreement that the parties signed makes it clear that the landlord must do so within 23 working days.
Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the tenant to know that their bond is safe and secure with the bond centre, and the public interest that all bonds are lodged within the prescribed timeframe, I am satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages against the landlord of $500.00.
Based on the above findings, the bond should be now returned to the tenant as set out in the table above which also includes the rent shortfall, exemplary damages order and filing fee to be reimbursed to the tenant.
The tenant being largely successful in their claim, are entitled to an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4881031 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat C, 13 Horace Street, Cromwell, Otago 9310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4881031 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat C, 13 Horace Street, Cromwell, Otago 9310

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