What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900842 about?

The tribunal order states: Jayson Thomas must pay [The tenant] $1,408.23 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4900842?

Compensation: (Rent rebate for the l…: $180.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Fine For Failing To Provide The Tena…: $333.33 awarded to tenant; Incurred By The Landlord: $125.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900842?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10576066-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900842 about?

The tribunal order states: Jayson Thomas must pay [The tenant] $1,408.23 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4900842?

Compensation: (Rent rebate for the l…: $180.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Fine For Failing To Provide The Tena…: $333.33 awarded to tenant; Incurred By The Landlord: $125.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900842?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10576066-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900842 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900842 — net $1,408.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
incurred by the landlord	$125.54		incurred by the landlord
Compensation: (Rent rebate for the last 3 weeks of		$180.00	(Rent rebate for the last 3 weeks of
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$1,000.00	Failure to lodge bond
Fine for failing to provide the tenant a signed written		$333.33	Fine for failing to provide the tenant a signed written
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$125.54	$1,533.77
Net award		$1,408.23
Bond		$2,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,408.23

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900842 — net $1,408.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
incurred by the landlord	$125.54		incurred by the landlord
Compensation: (Rent rebate for the last 3 weeks of		$180.00	(Rent rebate for the last 3 weeks of
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$1,000.00	Failure to lodge bond
Fine for failing to provide the tenant a signed written		$333.33	Fine for failing to provide the tenant a signed written
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$125.54	$1,533.77
Net award		$1,408.23
Bond		$2,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,408.23

Order

Jayson Thomas must pay [The tenant] $1,408.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for, compensation, exemplary damages and interest on the $2,880.00 bond not lodged for 6 months, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed the tenant had not left the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, had caused damage to the garage carpet and he did not want to release any of the bond to her until his cross application for compensation had been heard by the Tribunal. The two matters have not been linked in the Tribunal’s system.
The landlord agreed to me hearing the tenant’s matter today, separately to his counter claim, as I agreed to taking his reasons for withholding the bond into consideration as part of his defence to the tenant’s claim for her full bond to be returned. He did not request that I withhold the bond, until his cross application is heard.

Was the rent increased unlawfully?

The tenant provided an email from the landlord dated 29 February 2024 in which the landlord agrees to extend the termination of the tenancy date to 17 May 2024 on the condition the tenant agrees to a rent increase of $60.00 per week to take effect from 27 April 2024.
Section 24(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms: a. The landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and b. That notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and c. the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given; and d. The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 9 September 2023. The rent increase requested by the landlord was less than 12 months after the tenancy commenced and he did not provide the tenant with 60 days’ notice of the rent increase.
The landlord stated he had requested the increase to cover the costs he would incur as a result of giving the tenant an extension on the vacate date. It would have been lawful for the landlord to request the tenant contribute $60.00 per week towards the costs he would incur because of his granting the requested extension of the tenancy termination date. He did not do this. He increased the rent unlawfully.
I award the tenant compensation for the additional $60.00 a week she was required to pay for the last three weeks of her tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The evidence provided by the landlord proves the tenant left the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, except for leaving some clean kitty litter strewn across the bathroom floor. The photographic evidence provided by the landlord also proves the tenant did not remove all the household and recycling rubbish and did not leave the grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.
The tenant claims the lawns were mown on the weekend prior to them moving out on the following Thursday. The landlord has not included a claim against the bond for the lawn mowing as part of his defence to the tenant’s claim the bond had not been returned to her.
The tenant agreed the garden had not been maintained in the last few months of the tenancy and that an approximately 6-foot large shrub was overgrown and 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759. hanging over the lawn. She claims it was already very large when she moved and that the landlord should have been required to provide evidence of what the garden looked like when the tenancy commenced. Further, she claims the tenancy services website advises the landlord is usually responsible for pruning trees, shrubs and hedges. As such she claims she should not be held responsible for the cost of the pruning of or removal of the shrub.
The landlord gave evidence at the hearing that showed he was the most upset about the state of the garden at the end of the tenancy. He explained in detail what the garden looked like at the start of the tenancy. He seemed unperturbed by all his other “observations” of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy. Given the tenant did not refute that the garden was in good condition at the start of the tenancy or that the garden had not been maintained at all in the last few months of the tenancy, I accept that on the balance of probabilities the garden was more overgrown at the end of the tenancy than it was at the beginning of it and the landlord incurred time and cost restoring the garden to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The tenant says she should not be held responsible for the removal of the household and recycling waste she left in the council provided bins at the end of the tenancy but dd say that had she had been able to move out by midnight on 17 May 2024, instead of at 12noon, she would have disposed of this waste herself. The tenant’s evidence was that rubbish collection day for both bins was on the following Monday and that she should have been able to leave full bins to be collected 4 days after the end of the tenancy. I do not agree that the tenant should leave the two council provided bins full so that the landlord had nowhere to place his refuse for 4 days into him moving back into his home. It is usual for the tenants to leave empty council bins when they vacate the premise, so the incoming tenants have room to put their rubbish before the next council collection.
The tenant has also refuted she is responsible for the disposal costs of 3 x Ute loads. She says based on Seaview waste prices the maximum cost incurred for the disposal of one Ute load of household waste (at a cost of $79.00) and 2 Ute loads of green waste (at a cost of $42.00 per load) would total $163.00.
The receipt provided by the landlord shows he incurred the total cost of $188.27 for the disposal of 3 Ute loads of rubbish (17/5/24 =$66.88, 18/5/24 = $65.55 and 19/5/24 = $55.88). Two of these loads being green waste and one being household rubbish. I accept on the balance of probabilities that one of the Ute loads of green waste can be attributed to garden maintenance required to return the garden to a reasonable standard and that the additional Ute load of green waste was because of the landlord wanting to return the garden to a higher standard than that. I award the landlord two thirds of the total cost incurred, being $125.51.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 tenant 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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims he has withheld the bond because the tenant is responsible for the fading damage to the garage carpet.
The tenant provided photographic evidence that they had furniture and a TV in the garage, none of which would cause the fading damage to the carpet. Further, the windows in the garage had no curtains and that the fading was sun damage that was caused by the lack of window coverings.
The landlord claimed he had lived in the house for years and the sun had not damaged the carpet, despite there being no window coverings.
I do not accept the tenant caused the sun fading damage to the garage carpet because of any intentional or careless acts or omissions by her as she has successfully disproven liability for the sun damage from showing me the placing of the furnishing in the garage for the duration of the tenancy. There is nothing in the photographic evidence that suggests the damage could have been caused by the tenant’s intentional or careless acts or omissions. On the balance of probabilities, the damage is simply sun fade which is deemed fair, wear and tear. Therefore, the landlord has no claim over the tenant’s bond to cover any costs of remedying the sun fade damage to the garage carpet. Failure to lodge the bond
[The tenant] 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) 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 landlord received the tenant’s bond on 9 September 2023 and did not lodge it with the Bond Centre until 12 March 2024, after the tenant became aware of the breach and raised it with the landlord. 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 claimed the failure to lodge the bond with 23 days of his receiving payment of it was a simple oversight. Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and to comply with their legal obligations. I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after his receipt of it.
The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after 9 September 2023, but he did lodge it 6 months later when the tenant brought the breach to his attention; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting their bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenants owe the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 6 months, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenants’ knowledge of who held their bond. The tenant only became aware of the breach when she called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released at the end of her tenancy and that was the first, she knew that the bond had never been lodged; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at two thirds of the maximum amount for this category of breach because, although the landlord failed to lodge the bond for 6 months, he did lodge it as soon as the tenant brought the breach to his attention.
The tenant has also sought interest on the $2,880.00 bond, the landlord has withheld from her from 17 May 2024 to the date of today’s hearing.
The Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 does not apply to orders from the Tribunal and the RTA does not contain any provision that gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to award compensation to a party for any delay in the payment of money.

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant a written tenancy agreement?

Section 13 of the RTA confirms: a. The landlord must ensure that the tenancy agreement is in writing; b. The landlord must, before the tenancy commences: i. sign the tenancy agreement; and ii. provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant (whether or not the tenant has signed it). c. The tenant must sign the tenancy agreement. d. A landlord who fails to comply with these requirements commits an unlawful act; and commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
Neither party could provide me with a copy of the tenancy agreement left for the tenant at the house on move in date.
The parties confirmed during the hearing that the landlord had left an unsigned tenancy agreement in the house for the tenant to sign and return to him. He states he intended to sign it after she had come back to him with any issues and concerns or suggested amendments. Further, he stated that when she did not sign an return it to him he assumed she agreed with the written terms contained in the tenancy agreement he had left for her and that she didn’t deem it necessary to sign it as the tenant was a friend of his partner’s and in his mind this was a largely informal agreement between them.
The tenant confirmed that she had not signed the tenancy agreement because the landlord had not signed it and he had not conveyed why he had left an unsigned tenancy agreement for her. Further, at no time during the tenancy did he follow her up for a signed copy of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord is in breach of s13(2)(a) of the RTA, as he did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a signed copy of it to the tenant before the tenancy commenced.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award a fine up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 13(4)(b) and Schedule 1BResidential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached his s13(2)(a) of the RTA obligations and he should have been aware of this obligation as there is easily accessible information on the Tenancy Services website and the tenancy services helpline.
The obligations placed on a landlord to ensure tenancy agreements are signed and provided to the tenant before the tenancy commences is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously as it is difficult to resolve disputes brought to it by the parties when there are no agreed written terms and conditions of the tenancy.
It is not the tenant’s responsibility to chase a landlord up for a signed written tenancy agreement. As such there are no penalties prescribed in s13 of the RTA for tenants that have not signed a tenancy agreement provided to them.
In all the circumstances, I find it a fair quantum to fine the landlord at one third of the maximum fine, being $333.33 because the breach resulted in the parties not being clear about who was responsible for what aspects of garden maintenance, which I could hear during the hearing was clearly very important to the landlord. He stated in the hearing he would have come to trim the shrubs if the tenant was unable or not confident to do so. Had that been in the written and signed tenancy agreement, the tenant more than likely would have accepted that offer and the landlord would not have suffered the distress of not having his garden maintained at the standard he had expected.
However, the tenant could have asked the landlord for a signed coy of the tenancy agreement before move in day, and she confirmed she did not. She could have also pursued the landlord on or just after move in date to clarify or vary the written terms and conditions contained within the tenancy agreement the landlord left at the house, and then required him to sign it. She could have read and signed the tenancy agreement on move in day herself to convey she had read and accepted the terms and conditions of tenancy he had offered her. The tenant’s contributory conduct has resulted in a reduction in the quantum of the fine awarded. Her failure to sign and return the tenancy agreement to the landlord or to communicate with him in writing why she had not done so and any terms she wanted varied or clarified has made it challenging for the Tribunal to make determinations about issues such as garden/yard maintenance. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [the applicant] has wholly succeeded with her claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900842 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900842 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the rent increased unlawfully?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant a written tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the rent increased unlawfully?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant a written tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions