What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4901293 about?

The tribunal order states: I order suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4901293?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4901293?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4901293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11072208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4901293 about?

The tribunal order states: I order suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4901293?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4901293?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4901293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11072208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4901293 — Rent arrears

Order

I order suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s]
Benchmark Realty Limited As Agents For Let C Limited is to pay [The respondent/s] $27.00 immediately, the Tenant’s application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Following a full hearing, the parties agreed I would determine the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages in respect of the Tenant’s assertion that the Landlord required rent to be paid before the rent expiry period, in contravention of s 23(1). Once that claim was determined, the parties agreed I would subtract any award from the rent arrears owing ($712.15) and make an appropriate order.
The Tenant claims the landlord required her to pay rent before the already paid rent expired, in breach of section 23(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with the Landlord for a property with a weekly rent of $680.00. The agreement specified payments of four weeks’ rent for the bond and one week’s rent in advance.
The Tenant asserts that after paying the bond and the first week’s rent (facilitated by Work and Income), she was instructed to make an additional payment on the day she moved into the property.
The Tenant questions whether this request was lawful and claims it caused undue financial strain, particularly as she had already met the initial payment requirements outlined in the tenancy agreement. She was worried they would not get the home unless the Landlord’s move-in request was met and could foresee delays and difficulties in getting the additional payment through Work and Income. Relevant Law
Section 23(1) of the RTA prohibits landlords from requiring tenants to pay more than two weeks' rent in advance or any rent before the already paid rent expires.
A breach of this obligation is classified as an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00: s 23(4) and Schedule 1A of the RTA Facts
The Tenant asserts that, following the bond and advance rent payment, she was required by the Landlord to pay an additional week's rent on 18 September 2024, the day she moved into the property.
This payment request was communicated to the Tenant via email, which stated the Landlord’s policy of maintaining a week’s rent buffer to protect against tenants ceasing payments toward the end of their tenancy. I have read this email. Decision
Although the Landlord did not require more than two weeks’ rent in advance, the additional rent payment on move-in day still breached s 23(1) because it was requested before the period already paid for (the initial week’s rent in advance) had expired.
The Act’s intent is to prevent landlords from requesting further rent payments until the current period covered by rent payments has ended. Here, the Tenant’s initial payment of one week’s rent in advance covered her rent for the first week of her tenancy, which means she should not have been asked to pay again until the end of that first week.
By asking for additional rent on move-in day, the Landlord disregarded this requirement, effectively advancing the next payment date to before the initial period had been used up. This action constitutes a breach of s 23(1) and it imposed an additional financial burden on the Tenant prematurely. Intent and Public Interest Considerations
The landlord’s stated intent, to create a “buffer” for the last week of the tenancy, which, while perhaps well-intentioned, does not align with the requirements of the RTA. The Act is clear in prohibiting any rent requests until the period already paid for has been exhausted.
This requirement caused financial stress to the Tenant, who had to pay additional rent sooner than legally required, and the Landlord knew or ought to have known the Tenant was relying on Work and Income to pay the bond and rent.
Tenants should not be subjected to premature or unexpected rent demands.
The property manager, appearing on behalf of the Landlord, explained, sometimes tenants cannot afford to pay the rent on the move in date, as the Landlord has consistently requested, and they “work it out.” However, these tenants have still been misled as to their rights and entitlements. The property manager further explained, her agency understands the Tenant is to remain one week in advance all throughout the tenancy, at no time falling to less than a week in advance. This is incorrect.
Section 23 only allows a Landlord to require up to two weeks’ rent in advance at the start of the tenancy and prohibits requesting additional payments until the period covered by any advance payment has been exhausted. The Act does not mandate that tenants maintain a continuous rent buffer. By requiring the Tenant to always remain a week in advance, the Landlord has imposed an additional financial burden not supported by the RTA, breaching s 23.
I gathered from my early inquiries, the property manager now handling the file (not the same as the one who contrived the arrangement) did not understood what was wrong with the agreement or their practice of requiring an additional payment of rent on the move-in date and genuinely thought it was lawful and good practice. Award
The Tribunal awards exemplary damages to the Tenant in the amount of $712.15, considering the nature of the unlawful act and the Tenant’s financial hardship, she is effectively released from her obligation to pay the outstanding rent, which may also have caused financial hardship to the Landlord. Name Suppression
I consider the Tenant should be afforded name suppression as they have done the correct thing in bringing their claim to the Tribunal, and they have been successful.

Order

I order suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s]
Benchmark Realty Limited As Agents For Let C Limited is to pay [The respondent/s] $27.00 immediately, the Tenant’s application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Following a full hearing, the parties agreed I would determine the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages in respect of the Tenant’s assertion that the Landlord required rent to be paid before the rent expiry period, in contravention of s 23(1). Once that claim was determined, the parties agreed I would subtract any award from the rent arrears owing ($712.15) and make an appropriate order.
The Tenant claims the landlord required her to pay rent before the already paid rent expired, in breach of section 23(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with the Landlord for a property with a weekly rent of $680.00. The agreement specified payments of four weeks’ rent for the bond and one week’s rent in advance.
The Tenant asserts that after paying the bond and the first week’s rent (facilitated by Work and Income), she was instructed to make an additional payment on the day she moved into the property.
The Tenant questions whether this request was lawful and claims it caused undue financial strain, particularly as she had already met the initial payment requirements outlined in the tenancy agreement. She was worried they would not get the home unless the Landlord’s move-in request was met and could foresee delays and difficulties in getting the additional payment through Work and Income. Relevant Law
Section 23(1) of the RTA prohibits landlords from requiring tenants to pay more than two weeks' rent in advance or any rent before the already paid rent expires.
A breach of this obligation is classified as an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00: s 23(4) and Schedule 1A of the RTA Facts
The Tenant asserts that, following the bond and advance rent payment, she was required by the Landlord to pay an additional week's rent on 18 September 2024, the day she moved into the property.
This payment request was communicated to the Tenant via email, which stated the Landlord’s policy of maintaining a week’s rent buffer to protect against tenants ceasing payments toward the end of their tenancy. I have read this email. Decision
Although the Landlord did not require more than two weeks’ rent in advance, the additional rent payment on move-in day still breached s 23(1) because it was requested before the period already paid for (the initial week’s rent in advance) had expired.
The Act’s intent is to prevent landlords from requesting further rent payments until the current period covered by rent payments has ended. Here, the Tenant’s initial payment of one week’s rent in advance covered her rent for the first week of her tenancy, which means she should not have been asked to pay again until the end of that first week.
By asking for additional rent on move-in day, the Landlord disregarded this requirement, effectively advancing the next payment date to before the initial period had been used up. This action constitutes a breach of s 23(1) and it imposed an additional financial burden on the Tenant prematurely. Intent and Public Interest Considerations
The landlord’s stated intent, to create a “buffer” for the last week of the tenancy, which, while perhaps well-intentioned, does not align with the requirements of the RTA. The Act is clear in prohibiting any rent requests until the period already paid for has been exhausted.
This requirement caused financial stress to the Tenant, who had to pay additional rent sooner than legally required, and the Landlord knew or ought to have known the Tenant was relying on Work and Income to pay the bond and rent.
Tenants should not be subjected to premature or unexpected rent demands.
The property manager, appearing on behalf of the Landlord, explained, sometimes tenants cannot afford to pay the rent on the move in date, as the Landlord has consistently requested, and they “work it out.” However, these tenants have still been misled as to their rights and entitlements. The property manager further explained, her agency understands the Tenant is to remain one week in advance all throughout the tenancy, at no time falling to less than a week in advance. This is incorrect.
Section 23 only allows a Landlord to require up to two weeks’ rent in advance at the start of the tenancy and prohibits requesting additional payments until the period covered by any advance payment has been exhausted. The Act does not mandate that tenants maintain a continuous rent buffer. By requiring the Tenant to always remain a week in advance, the Landlord has imposed an additional financial burden not supported by the RTA, breaching s 23.
I gathered from my early inquiries, the property manager now handling the file (not the same as the one who contrived the arrangement) did not understood what was wrong with the agreement or their practice of requiring an additional payment of rent on the move-in date and genuinely thought it was lawful and good practice. Award
The Tribunal awards exemplary damages to the Tenant in the amount of $712.15, considering the nature of the unlawful act and the Tenant’s financial hardship, she is effectively released from her obligation to pay the outstanding rent, which may also have caused financial hardship to the Landlord. Name Suppression
I consider the Tenant should be afforded name suppression as they have done the correct thing in bringing their claim to the Tribunal, and they have been successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4901293 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4901293 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions