What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4898349 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4898349?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,674.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898349?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4898349 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4898349?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,674.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898349?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

565B Pahi Road, Pahi, RD 1, Paparoa 0571 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4898349 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4898349 — net $8,014.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 September 2024	$9,674.29		Rent arrears to 12 September 2024
Bond refund (bond held by landlord		$1,680.00	Bond refund (bond held by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$9,694.73	$1,680.00
Net award	$8,014.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,014.73

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4898349 — net $8,014.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 September 2024	$9,674.29		Rent arrears to 12 September 2024
Bond refund (bond held by landlord		$1,680.00	Bond refund (bond held by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$9,694.73	$1,680.00
Net award	$8,014.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,014.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Joanna Llewell must pay [The landlord/s] $10,054.73 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant in person and one of the landlords by phone. I conducted the hearing in [Event location suppressed] on 23 October 2024. I adjourned the hearing until 31 October 2024 to allow the tenant the opportunity to produced copies of her bank account statements showing payments of rent she said she had made. I then allowed the landlord to respond to that evidence. Background
The tenancy started on 26 July 2023. The tenancy was managed by a property management company at first. However, the landlord later took over management of the tenancy.
The landlord served a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy because the premises were to be sold. The tenant says she did not receive the notice. She remained in possession.
Following a Tribunal hearing on 5 July 2024 (conducted by phone) the tenancy was terminated with effect from the date of the order (8 July 2024). The Tribunal also made an order for rent arrears.
The tenant was evicted on 12 September 2024.
The tenant applied for a rehearing as she said she did not receive notice of the hearing. The Tribunal granted the tenant’s application for rehearing.
The tenant then cross-applied on 29 September 2024. I heard both applications together. I heard evidence from both parties and from the tenant’s mother. The applications
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the non-lodgement of the bond; compensation for the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and compensation for an alleged unlawful entry/unauthorised visit by the landlord. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Does the tenant owe rent? If so, how much does she owe? •Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Has the tenant proved breaches by the landlord for which compensation should be awarded? Relevant legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has with intent committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Those factors are: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. The first issue - Does the tenant owe rent? If so, how much does she owe?
The rent position is confusing. The tenancy agreement prepared by the owner’s agent records rent of $480.00 per week with a bond of $1,680.00. The landlord’s (the owners’) recently produced rent record shows that the tenant only ever paid rent of $420.00 per week. The landlord said her property manager paid her $520.00 per week, but the tenant was not required to pay that amount.
The confusion is noted but is not determinative. The landlord has only claimed rent at the rate of $420.00 per week from the start of the tenancy until 2 May 2024, when the rent increased to $480.00 per week. The tenant made payments at that amount following a direction from the Tribunal at the first hearing.
The tenant said she had missed 3 payments of rent. She said she owed rent arrears of $1,260.00 only. She produced a record from her bank of rent payments made from her account.
I allowed the tenant time to provide further evidence of rent payments. She produced records of payments. The landlord states that these records confirm their rent claim, and they have no further submissions to make.
The landlord’s rent records show there were no rent arrears before 11 October 2023. The bank records the tenant has now produced show that the landlord’s rent record is correct other than for 5 payments not accounted for - $440.00 paid on 10 January 2024; $300.00 paid on 22 February 2024; $480.00 paid on 6 March 2024; $400.00 paid on 18 April 2024; and $420.00 paid on 1 May 2024.
The unaccounted payments of rent amount to $2,040.00. I have therefore deducted that amount from the landlord’s rent claim of $11,714.29. I have made a rent arrears money order for $9,674.29.
In her evidence at the hearing the tenant says she had paid the owner’s property manager some cash payments of rent. When I pressed her about that she said she did not know how much, or when she made those payments.
I find there is no evidence to support any cash payments of rent. The only reliable evidence are the payment records produced by the tenant and the landlord’s rent record. The second issue - Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?
The tenant says she paid (or rather WINZ advanced) a bond of $1,680.00 paid to the owners’ property manager.
The landlord said she was unaware of that, but she accepted that a bond had been paid and that the bond amount should be deducted from the rent arrears claim. That is what I have done.
The owners cannot be responsible for the non-lodgement of the bond since it was not paid to them. They were unaware of it. So, they could not have intentionally failed to lodge the bond.
The tenant has only named the owners as the landlord party, not the property manager to whom she says the bond was paid. Possibly, the property manager (the landlord at the start of the tenancy) committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond. But as the property manager was not named as a party and therefore did not participate in the hearing, I cannot make any order against them.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for exemplary damages. The third issue - Has the tenant proved breaches by the landlord for which compensation should be awarded?
The tenant says the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy state. She said the hot water ran too hot; the air conditioning needed to be fixed; the deck provided no safe access to the driveway; there were gaps in the doors; and some windows were off their latches. She said the sewage system malfunctioned and sewage water came up to the deck level. She said the premises were dirty and needed cleaning.
The landlord owner denied there was any issue with the hot water temperature in the shower. She said the septic tank was serviced every year and worked well. She said the premises were reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy and the cleaning the tenant did was recognised by a payment of $500.00.
The tenant said she received $500.00 but it was for work she did at other premises managed by the property manager. However, her bank record specifically records that the payment from the property management firm was in relation to this tenancy.
When I queried whether the tenant had communicated her concerns at the time, she said she had screen shots of messages to the property manager, but she had not provided them.
The tenant’s mother gave evidence. She said the premises were dirty at the start of the tenancy and there was a lot of rubbish that had to be removed. She said the property manager and her son cleaned the bathroom while she took care of the rubbish on the deck.
The tenant’s mother’s evidence contradicted what the tenant said about the area between the deck and the driveway being unsafe and muddy. She said there was generally no problem getting from the driveway to the deck. She said she never noticed any problem with the septic tank system.
The tenant did not produce any photos to support her allegations about the state of the premises. The landlord’s photos produced in evidence do not support the tenant’s allegations.
The Tribunal regards with some caution allegations like this made after the tenancy has ended and in response to the landlord’s application, in the absence of photographic and other evidence.
In as much as some cleaning and rubbish removal work was required at the start of the tenancy, the tenant received compensation from the property management company of $500.00. That seems reasonable and fair.
The tenant also alleges that one of the owner’s turned up unannounced with real estate agents to appraise the property. She said she would not agree to the real estate agents viewing the premises, but she did agree to the owner entering. She said it was not a good time as she was preparing for a tangi.
The owner said she was aware of her husband’s visit. She said they had tried to contact the tenant through an agent unsuccessfully. She said her husband would not have entered the premises without the tenant’s consent.
The tenant’s mother said she received a phone call from the owner asking her to advise her daughter that she would need to move out. She agreed to pass on the message. She said she understood the owner’s position.
The tenant’s mother said she suffered from a health condition, and it was upsetting to hear things said about her daughter. She said she just wanted her daughter to do what she should do.
The tenant submitted that her mother had been harmed by the owner’s call. I do not accept that. The tenant’s mother impressed me as an honest witness. She did not convey the distress that her daughter alleged. She understood the difficulties the owners were experiencing trying to contact the tenant.
Further, the tenant’s mother is listed as her emergency contact and agent in the tenancy agreement. It was reasonable for the owners to contact her when they could not contact the tenant.
That the owner turned up unannounced but did not enter the premises until the tenant consented is not a breach that would attract compensation. Nor was there any landlord breach by the owner contacting the tenant’s mother (her listed agent and contact person) when they could not contact the tenant.
The owners were entitled to place the property on the market for sale. The tenant was not entitled to interfere with that process by making herself difficult to contact.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation. The landlord (the owners) did not commit any breaches for which the Tribunal is persuaded to award compensation. Result
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is proved in the amount of $9,674.29 to which is added the filing fee the landlord paid, a total of $9,694.73. After the deduction of the bond of $1,680.00, the tenant must pay the landlord $8,014.73.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The landlord is entitled to an order since their application is successful. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as her application, and her defence to the landlord’s application, is not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4898349 — Rent arrears at 565B Pahi Road, Pahi, RD 1, Paparoa 0571

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4898349 — Rent arrears at 565B Pahi Road, Pahi, RD 1, Paparoa 0571

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