What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4898354 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 4898354?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $1,120.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $455.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898354?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11131656-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4898354 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 4898354?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $1,120.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $455.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898354?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11131656-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

175 Mahoenui Valley Road, Coatesville, Coatesville 0793 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4898354 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4898354. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: carpet damage	$455.70		Repairs: carpet damage
Repairs: kitchen bench damage	$300.00		Repairs: kitchen bench damage
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond		$350.00	fail to lodge bond
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment		$1,120.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: seize goods		$150.00	seize goods
Total award	$755.70	$1,620.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4898354. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: carpet damage	$455.70		Repairs: carpet damage
Repairs: kitchen bench damage	$300.00		Repairs: kitchen bench damage
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond		$350.00	fail to lodge bond
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment		$1,120.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: seize goods		$150.00	seize goods
Total award	$755.70	$1,620.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Mark Alton must pay [The tenant/s] $864.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the following table:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately
The landlord’s claim for compensation for the carpet mat, is offset by the landlord retaining the tenants’ dishwasher.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Claims
The tenants filed an application on 30 May 2024 seeking: a. exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond; b. compensation for breach of their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises; c. exemplary damages for unlawful entry by the landlord; d. exemplary damages for the landlord seizing their possessions. They seek payment of their bond.
The landlord filed a cross application on 12 November 2024 seeking compensation for: a. damage to carpet b. damage to a kitchen benchtop. Bond
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 tenants paid the landlord a bond of $2,160.00 on 16 February 2023.
It is not disputed that the landlord did not pay it to the Bond Centre until 13 April 2024.
The landlord has accordingly 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 evidence is that he believed he had lodged the bond. After issues had arisen between he and tenants, the landlord contacted the Bond Centre on 11 April 2024 to find out what the bond number was. He was told that no bond was held. He then immediately lodged the bond on 12 April 2024.
In the meantime, the tenants’ bond money had been held in the landlord’s general account, through which the landlord’s personal and business transactions were also conducted.
In considering whether the landlord’s breach was intentional, in this context a breach might be considered unintentional if caused by circumstances outside the landlord’s control, for example through banking error or issues with how the bond was processed by the Bond Centre. Failure to lodge the bond through oversight does not fall into that category and I find the breach intentional.
In considering the criteria under s.109(3) noted above, I take into account that: a. the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was through error and not improper intent; b. there is no evidence of the tenants having raised with the landlord a concern that the bond had not been lodged; c. the bond was lodged before the end of the tenancy; d. the bond was lodged more than 12 months after the date it ought to have been; e. during that time the bond was not held in a separate rental account for the tenants but intermingled with the landlord’s other funds and exposed to risk of loss; f. the public interest requires that landlords are mindful of ensuring such fundamental obligations are met.
Weighing those considerations I find that it would be just to make a modest award of exemplary damages to recognise the landlord’s breach. Breach of Right to Quiet Enjoyment
A tenant is entitled to, “......quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.” See section 38(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The evidence does not support a finding that the landlord harassed the tenants.
The landlord lives in a property adjoining the premises. In places there is no boundary wall or fence between the properties.
Under the agreement, the landlord has responsibility for maintaining the lawns and grounds. The landlord is in his words quite passionate about lawn and garden maintenance which he described as his hobby.
The tenants say that they felt that their privacy was invaded because: a. the window coverings could be seen through at night with the inside lights on; b. the landlord was very often at the property, sometimes unexpectedly; c. there were occasions where it seemed the landlord was deliberately eavesdropping or prying into the tenant’s private activities.
Having heard at some length from both parties, I do not find it proved that there was any improper conduct on the landlord’s part such as a deliberate eavesdropping or prying into the tenants’ personal affairs. The standard of proof applied in the Tribunal is on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt but those are nevertheless serious allegations to make and need to be supported by persuasive evidence.
It is clear that the tenants felt uncomfortable during the tenancy with the frequency and proximity of the landlord’s visits to the premises. Formal discussions were held between them about those concerns after the tenants confronted the landlord about them.
I find it more likely than not that the tenants’ recollection of being in a Facetime chat with family and being disturbed at seeing the landlord on the property are accurate – though there is some question about the alleged date. I find it proved that on another occasion the landlord chose to deliver something to the door of the premises, unannounced, that the tenants had asked to be dropped into the letter box, catching one of the tenants was in a state of partial undress.
More generally, the landlord has provided a list which he says identifies all of the times he visited the property during the tenancy. That list comprises 43 visits over the 65 weeks of the tenancy. The landlord says that he always txt in advance, which the tenants accept was mostly the case, apart from the incidents mentioned above.
Many of the visits listed were to mow the lawns or undertake other grounds maintenance, which was the landlord’s responsibility under the agreement. The landlord accepts that often when he was at the premises to mow the lawns he might potter around with other garden tasks.
The evidence persuades me on balance that the landlord tended to treat the premises as something of an extension of his own backyard which he enjoyed attending to. While that is not in itself problematic, it did become an unreasonable intrusion into the tenants’ right to enjoy enjoyment of the premises, as they felt that the landlord was “always there”. I find on balance that those intrusions, though not intended to, did cross the line and became unreasonable.
That impression is somewhat reinforced by the landlord having given the tenants by txt and in writing on 11 April 2024, a 14 day notice “After my phone conversation with Corey this morning about all the rubbish that is constantly piled up in bags and not put out on a weekly basis, I have issued you with a 14 day notice to remedy..... as I informed Corey, I would like it cleaned up by Friday 12 April. I will inspect it on Friday afternoon and every Friday after that to see that you are conforming to my request...”.
The terms of that notice suggest the landlord felt entitled to demand an oversight of the way the tenants occupied the premises, that went beyond his entitlements as a landlord under the RTA.
The tenants are entitled to some compensation to recognise the impact on their right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises. I fix that compensation at two weeks’ rent, which also broadly equates to $20.00 per week for the term of the tenancy. Unlawful entry
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with a 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.
Section 48(7) provides that, “In this section premises does not include land or facilities.”
There is no suggestion that the landlord entered into the dwelling or any part of the premises other the land or facilities, without notice.
This claim is accordingly declined. Seizure of goods
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenants’ goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants’ evidence is that the landlord took two balls belonging to their daughter which had rolled over the edge of the retaining wall between the two properties and did not return them.
While giving other explanations, essentially the landlord acknowledged that he had put the balls into his shed and not return them because he was annoyed with the tenants over the disputes that had arisen between them.
By seizing and not returning those items, the landlord committed in an unlawful act.
Section 33 is really intended to prevent a landlord seizing tenants’ property for financial advantage. That is not the case here. The consequences for the tenants have been somewhat annoying but not severe.
The landlord nevertheless acted wrongfully in retaining those items belonging to the tenants because he was annoyed at them over issues relating to the tenancy and a minor award of exemplary damages is just to recognise that.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Carpet
Photographic evidence shows that at the end of the tenancy there was staining to the carpet and to a mat, which remained after the tenants had cleaned them with a Rug Doctor.
I am satisfied that the extent of those stains justified replacement of the mat. It justified repair of the carpet to remove the stains.
The landlord elected to replace the whole of the affected carpet rather than have it patched. He claims only the cost of the carpet, not its installation. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. To allow for its depreciated value, the landlord should be compensated for 70% of the cost of the replacement carpet, which was new in 2020.
The cost of the replacement mat was $138.82. The landlord has retained a dishwasher bought by the tenants from the previous tenants for $150.00. The parties had discussed offsetting those two amounts, which is appropriate. Kitchen Bench
When the final inspection was done the landlord indicated that he was happy with the condition of the premises except for the carpets. He says that later when cleaning the premises he discovered damage to the kitchen bench which is marked by what appears to be a line of silicon or glue and abrasions where it appears there have been attempts to clean it off.
Photographs provided by the tenant from the end pf the tenancy show that the damage was there when the tenancy ended.
No such damage or marks were identified in the entry inspection report which notes that the kitchen was refurbished in 2020.
I find it proved to be more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The question is whether that damage caused a loss for which the landlord should be compensated.
The landlord his relet the premises through a property management agency. The rent received by the landlord is no less because of the marks on the bench. The landlord says that if compensation is awarded he will use that compensation to repair the bench in terms of the quote provided but there appears no obvious or immediate need for him to do so. So, there is no immediate loss to compensate the landlord for.
I accept however that the damage and marking that occurred during the tenancy may mean that the bench top needs to be replaced earlier than it would have otherwise, so it is appropriate to make a modest award of compensation to the landlord for that likelihood
As each party has had claims upheld, I make no order in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4898354 — Property damage at 175 Mahoenui Valley Road, Coatesville, Coatesville 0793

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4898354 — Property damage at 175 Mahoenui Valley Road, Coatesville, Coatesville 0793

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions