What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4899935 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 4899935?

Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899935?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899935?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11289602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4899935 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 4899935?

Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899935?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899935?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11289602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4899935 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899935 — net $1,320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,300.00	% of the maximum of $6,500.00 to be appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay $1,300.00.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	y exemplary damages to the tenant of $900.00 and to reimburse the filing fee of $20.44.
Net award	$1,320.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,320.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899935 — net $1,320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,300.00	% of the maximum of $6,500.00 to be appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay $1,300.00.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	y exemplary damages to the tenant of $900.00 and to reimburse the filing fee of $20.44.
Net award	$1,320.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,320.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Kate Bone must pay [The tenant/s] $1,320.44 immediately.
The applications by the landlord are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 10 January 2025. Midway through the hearing the video connection with the tenant was lost. The hearing carried on with the tenant by telephone once a connection could be made.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for a breach of s.60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) by the landlord. The matter was initially heard on 18 July 2024. In an order dated 20 July 2024, the Tribunal confirmed that it did have jurisdiction to consider the dispute and the landlord was ordered to pay exemplary damages to the tenant of $900.00 and to reimburse the filing fee of $20.44.
The landlord filed an application for a rehearing.
By order dated 23 August 2024, the landlord’s application for a rehearing of the award of exemplary damages was granted by the Tribunal. The rehearing application regarding jurisdiction was dismissed.
I am bound by the earlier order relating to jurisdiction. I am therefore not required to consider the jurisdiction issue.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner. The parties expressed strong feelings of disappointment and stress with how things evolved during the course of the tenancy.
I have today reheard the tenant application for exemplary damages under s.60AA RTA. The tenant claims that the landlord has acted to terminate her tenancy without grounds.
In the interim, the landlord has filed a cross claim. The landlord seeks compensation for; • Damage to a carpet. • Loss of rent. • Doctor’s charges. • Reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenant claim
The tenancy commenced in early May 2024. The tenancy ended on 27 May 2024. The Tribunal order dated 20 July 2024, found that this was a periodic tenancy.
The tenanted premises formed part of the landlord’s home and could be described as a “granny flat” arrangement. The tenanted unit was on the ground floor and consisted of a room, ensuite, kitchenette and a covered patio. The landlord lived in the upper story. There was a locked adjoining door between the premises. The door was locked on the landlord’s side.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached s.60AA RTA. That section provides; 60AA Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give notice or to make the application.
Breaching that obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded to a maximum of $6,500.00.
The landlord says that the tenant breached the terms of her tenancy agreement and in particular, that the tenant had brought another dog onto the premises, had guests who smoked, rent arrears and had entered the landlord’s premises.
On 23 May 2024, the landlord sent a notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy for the breaches referred to above. The notice gave the tenant until 5pm on Saturday 25 May 2024 to leave the premises.
Upon receiving the notice, the tenant sought and was granted a 2-day extension to 27 May 2024, at which time the tenant left.
A landlord cannot give a tenant a 2 day or even the extended 4 day notice under the RTA.
The landlord says that she now understands her obligations under the RTA and accepts that her actions in issuing the termination notice were a breach of the RTA.
I have no difficulty in finding that in issuing the termination notice, the landlord has committed an unlawful act under s.60AA RTA.
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 says that at the time of giving the notice, she was not aware of this limitation contained in the RTA. This issue of knowledge was considered by the Tribunal at the first hearing. The adjudicator said in that order, and I agree that; “23. Ms Bone says that she is not liable under s.60AA because she did not know at the time that she gave the notice that [The tenant/s] was a tenant, and therefore she cannot be said to have knowingly given notice or breached the RTA.
This argument has been submitted by many parties on when facing awards of exemplary damages, and has been answered by the appeal courts as follows: • Intention is whether the party committing the breach intended to do the ‘act’ that they did, in this case did Ms Bone intend to give [The tenant/s] notice to leave the tenancy? • Ignorance or misunderstanding of the law does not allow a person who committed an unlawful act to escape an award of exemplary damages.
I am satisfied that Ms Bone intended for [The tenant/s] to leave the premises and terminate her tenancy when she gave her notice on 23 May 2024. As there was no provision in the RTA which would allow Ms Bone to terminate [The tenant/s] tenancy in the way that she did then I am satisfied that Ms Bone has committed an unlawful act under s60AA.”
Having found that the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that she knowingly gave the notice to terminate the tenancy, I must consider whether it would be just to order exemplary damages having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant and the public interest (see s.109(3) RTA).
The landlord’s intent was clear. In her evidence, the landlord said that she just wanted the tenant gone.
The tenant said that she shocked and upset to receive the notice to terminate. She got a workmate to cover her work and went to the house of a friend. She sent an email to the landlord asking for a brief extension. That extension was granted. The tenant moved out of the premises Monday 27 May 2024 and moved to her daughters house. She managed to find alternative accommodation on 17 June 2024.
I accept that the landlord acted in error as she did not initially consider the arrangement to be a tenancy. At the hearing, it seemed clear that the landlord was apologetic for her actions. The landlord said that the notice had been given in main because she no longer felt that she could trust the tenant.
The facts of the matter are such that exemplary damages should be awarded. Exemplary damages are like a fine or a penalty imposed on the landlord for their actions. The award is paid to the tenant. There is no requirement for the tenant to prove loss.
The aggravating factors for me to consider in setting the appropriate award are; • The very short notice period given to the tenant. • This tenant and tenants generally are entitled to rely on the terms of the RTA to protect their interests and the continuity of their tenancy.
The mitigating factors are; • The landlord’s misunderstand in of her legal rights. This is of limited mitigation. Renting a property is a business. Landlords must make themselves aware of their obligations (see TMT New Zealand Limited t/a Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundhal [2021] NZDC 16182). • I am not aware of any previous breaches of the RTA by this landlord. • The landlord has been apologetic for her actions.
Having taken the aggravating and mitigating factors into consideration, I consider an award of exemplary damages equivalent to 20% of the maximum of $6,500.00 to be appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay $1,300.00. to the tenant. Landlord claims
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to her carpet. The landlord says and the tenant admitted that she had given chocolate drops to the landlord’s dogs. Chocolate can be toxic for dogs. Both dogs became extremely ill and they both vomited on the landlord’s carpet causing substantial damage to the carpet. The landlord evidence was that the fluid was so copious that the carpets could not simply be cleaned. The damaged area of the carpet was replaced with identical carpet at a cost of $1,385.00.
The RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided for in the Act. A “tenancy” is defined in the RTA as being the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent. “Residential premises” are defined as meaning any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. The damage was incurred by the landlord at her premises, not the tenanted premises and accordingly, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The landlord seeks compensation for loss of rent. Having unlawfully terminated the tenancy, the landlord seeks compensation of $728.00 for the 16 days rent from the end of the tenancy on 27 May 2024, until she was able to find a replacement tenant. It was the landlord’s act in unlawfully terminating the tenancy that brought the tenancy to an end. There is no legal basis for the claim. The landlord cannot act unlawfully and then seek compensation for losses caused by that very act. The claim for compensation is dismissed.
The landlord seeks general damages for Doctor’s costs incurred. An invoice for $83.00 was provided. The landlord says that the tenant’s actions caused her substantial stress and anxiety. She approached her Doctor who prescribed medication for anxiety. In a claim of this nature, the Tribunal would normally require some professional medical evidence to support the causation between the action complained of and the illness. No evidence was supplied by the landlord, other than a copy of the receipt for the consultation. The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The landlord must prove her claim to the usual civil standard of proof. That it is more likely than not. I do not consider that the landlord’s evidence has reached that evidentiary standard and the claim for compensation is dismissed.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA, a suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweighs the interests of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in her claim and the application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. For the purposes of certainty, the order requiring the landlord to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee contained in the Tribunal’s earlier order is confirmed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899935 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899935 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions