What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4921233 about?

The tribunal order states: claims for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and water

How much money was awarded in case 4921233?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921233?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921233?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10573345-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4921233 about?

The tribunal order states: claims for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and water

How much money was awarded in case 4921233?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921233?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921233?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10573345-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

41 Thornlow Street, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4921233 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921233 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages; Fail to lodge bond	$400.00	Exemplary damages; Fail to lodge bond
Reimburse filing fee	$20.44	Reimburse filing fee
Net award	$420.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.44

Order

claims for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and water rates, are dismissed.
immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates, and refund of the bond.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages and claims the following: a. The bond was not lodged within 23 days of the tenancy beginning. b. The landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The Tribunal applies the civil law standard of proof to all application. That means the applicant is required to prove their case to the civil standard of “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the Tribunal need be satisfied that what the applicant says is more likely to be correct, than incorrect. The landlord’s claims Rent arrears, water rates and termination
The landlord claims the tenant owes $5,620.00 for rent arrears.
The tenant disputes the amount of rent arrears and raises questions about how much rent was to be reduced due to agreed rent reductions.
No rent summary was provided with the landlord’s application. During the hearing the landlord produced a sheet of paper with two columns of information headed “2023” and “received rent”. The sheet of paper also gives a total of the tenant’s debt as calculated by the landlord.
A description of a rent summary is provided by Tenancy Services in the landlord’s application form (dated 1 May 2024), and a request for a rent summary was made by Tenancy Services in a letter to the landlord on 13 May 2024. The information required to prove the rent arrears has not been provided by the landlord, and the information provided is not sufficient to reliably establish the rent arrears.
The claim for an amount of rent arrears is not proved.
The landlord is claiming overdue water rates. The sheet of paper that the landlord produced states the amount he is seeking is $3,002.21. The landlord provided one Watercare notice for $3,002.21. This is made up of an overdue amount of $2,816.48 and a current amount of $185.73, which includes fixed costs for which the tenant is not liable.
The overdue section of the Watercare notice does not separate fixed costs from consumption costs. The Watercare bill does not provide me with sufficient information to prove the tenant’s liability for overdue water rates.
The landlord then provided a table, drawn by a friend calculating the consumption costs of the bill.
The tenant did not accept the reliability of the amounts on this table.
I do not accept the reliability of this document.
The landlord’s claim for an amount of overdue water rates is not proved.
Given the landlord has not proved the amounts of the debts, the application for termination of the tenancy has no established basis, and is not proved. The tenant’s claims Landlord failed to lodge bond within 23 days
claims the landlord did not lodge 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 tenant claims she paid a bond of $3,120.00 to the tenant on 28 February 2023. The tenant claims that on several occasions throughout 2023 she requested an update from the landlord about the status of her bond. These requests included a text on 9 April 2023 to a person called Wendy, a text on 14 December 2023 to a person called Vivi, and occasions when Mr Lin visited the property to collect mail.
The tenant claims she finally received notice the bond had been lodged on 1 February 2024.
The landlord accepts the bond was not lodged within 23 working days. I find they have 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 says the bond was not lodged because there was a breakdown in communication between himself and the people who were helping him manage the property. A landlord has a duty of care to their tenants. The bond money does not belong to the landlord, it belongs to the tenants. The landlord failed to lodge it with the bond centre for 11 months, which I consider to be a considerable amount of time. There is a high public interest in landlords meeting high standards of reliability, competence and honesty. On this occasion the landlord failed to meet these standards. I am not aware of other breaches of a similar matter by the same landlord. I consider an award of exemplary damages of $400.00 to be appropriate in this case. Breach of quiet enjoyment
claims her quiet enjoyment was breached by the landlord holding open homes and private viewings for prospective purchasers of the property between Saturday 3 February 2024 and Friday 28 June 2024.
The tenant states that on all but one of these occasions the landlord gave notice as required under the RTA section 48, and she consented to the viewings. The tenant stated that on some other occasions she did not consent to the landlord showing people through the property.
Section 48 is reproduced in part below: 48 Landlord’s right of entry (3)With the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises— (a)to prospective tenants; or (b)to prospective purchasers; or (c)to a registered valuer engaged in the preparation of a report on the premises; or (d)to a real estate agent engaged in appraising, evaluating, or selling or otherwise disposing of the premises; or (e)to an expert engaged in appraising or evaluating the premises; or (f)to a person who is authorised to inspect the premises under any enactment. (3A)For the purposes of subsection (3), the tenant— (a)may not withhold his or her consent unreasonably; and (b)may make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
The tenant stated that an agreement was struck for the first four weeks of open homes whereby the landlord would reduce the tenant’s rent by $100.00 per week in compensation for the disruption they caused to the tenant. The tenant on these occasions left the property clean and tidy, and removed her three children and two elderly parents from the property. The tenant expected that the original agreement as recorded in a text, would apply to subsequent weeks of viewings. The landlord disputed that this was ever agreed. Nothing was ever written confirming such an agreement.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, the landlord also has a right to show certain people through the property for the purpose of selling the property. Limits are set on this right and I find the landlord complied with these limits. It is customary for landlords to compensate tenants for the disruptions caused, but this is not a statutory requirement, and the absence of it does not mean that a consented viewing changes in nature to become a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant has not persuaded me that the ongoing nature of the viewings amounts to a breach of her quiet enjoyment. The claim is not proved.
Because has not succeeded with his claim, and [The tenant/s] has partially succeeded with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921233 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages; Fail to lodge bond	$400.00	Exemplary damages; Fail to lodge bond
Reimburse filing fee	$20.44	Reimburse filing fee
Net award	$420.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.44

Order

claims for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and water rates, are dismissed.
immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates, and refund of the bond.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages and claims the following: a. The bond was not lodged within 23 days of the tenancy beginning. b. The landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The Tribunal applies the civil law standard of proof to all application. That means the applicant is required to prove their case to the civil standard of “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the Tribunal need be satisfied that what the applicant says is more likely to be correct, than incorrect. The landlord’s claims Rent arrears, water rates and termination
The landlord claims the tenant owes $5,620.00 for rent arrears.
The tenant disputes the amount of rent arrears and raises questions about how much rent was to be reduced due to agreed rent reductions.
No rent summary was provided with the landlord’s application. During the hearing the landlord produced a sheet of paper with two columns of information headed “2023” and “received rent”. The sheet of paper also gives a total of the tenant’s debt as calculated by the landlord.
A description of a rent summary is provided by Tenancy Services in the landlord’s application form (dated 1 May 2024), and a request for a rent summary was made by Tenancy Services in a letter to the landlord on 13 May 2024. The information required to prove the rent arrears has not been provided by the landlord, and the information provided is not sufficient to reliably establish the rent arrears.
The claim for an amount of rent arrears is not proved.
The landlord is claiming overdue water rates. The sheet of paper that the landlord produced states the amount he is seeking is $3,002.21. The landlord provided one Watercare notice for $3,002.21. This is made up of an overdue amount of $2,816.48 and a current amount of $185.73, which includes fixed costs for which the tenant is not liable.
The overdue section of the Watercare notice does not separate fixed costs from consumption costs. The Watercare bill does not provide me with sufficient information to prove the tenant’s liability for overdue water rates.
The landlord then provided a table, drawn by a friend calculating the consumption costs of the bill.
The tenant did not accept the reliability of the amounts on this table.
I do not accept the reliability of this document.
The landlord’s claim for an amount of overdue water rates is not proved.
Given the landlord has not proved the amounts of the debts, the application for termination of the tenancy has no established basis, and is not proved. The tenant’s claims Landlord failed to lodge bond within 23 days
claims the landlord did not lodge 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 tenant claims she paid a bond of $3,120.00 to the tenant on 28 February 2023. The tenant claims that on several occasions throughout 2023 she requested an update from the landlord about the status of her bond. These requests included a text on 9 April 2023 to a person called Wendy, a text on 14 December 2023 to a person called Vivi, and occasions when Mr Lin visited the property to collect mail.
The tenant claims she finally received notice the bond had been lodged on 1 February 2024.
The landlord accepts the bond was not lodged within 23 working days. I find they have 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 says the bond was not lodged because there was a breakdown in communication between himself and the people who were helping him manage the property. A landlord has a duty of care to their tenants. The bond money does not belong to the landlord, it belongs to the tenants. The landlord failed to lodge it with the bond centre for 11 months, which I consider to be a considerable amount of time. There is a high public interest in landlords meeting high standards of reliability, competence and honesty. On this occasion the landlord failed to meet these standards. I am not aware of other breaches of a similar matter by the same landlord. I consider an award of exemplary damages of $400.00 to be appropriate in this case. Breach of quiet enjoyment
claims her quiet enjoyment was breached by the landlord holding open homes and private viewings for prospective purchasers of the property between Saturday 3 February 2024 and Friday 28 June 2024.
The tenant states that on all but one of these occasions the landlord gave notice as required under the RTA section 48, and she consented to the viewings. The tenant stated that on some other occasions she did not consent to the landlord showing people through the property.
Section 48 is reproduced in part below: 48 Landlord’s right of entry (3)With the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises— (a)to prospective tenants; or (b)to prospective purchasers; or (c)to a registered valuer engaged in the preparation of a report on the premises; or (d)to a real estate agent engaged in appraising, evaluating, or selling or otherwise disposing of the premises; or (e)to an expert engaged in appraising or evaluating the premises; or (f)to a person who is authorised to inspect the premises under any enactment. (3A)For the purposes of subsection (3), the tenant— (a)may not withhold his or her consent unreasonably; and (b)may make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
The tenant stated that an agreement was struck for the first four weeks of open homes whereby the landlord would reduce the tenant’s rent by $100.00 per week in compensation for the disruption they caused to the tenant. The tenant on these occasions left the property clean and tidy, and removed her three children and two elderly parents from the property. The tenant expected that the original agreement as recorded in a text, would apply to subsequent weeks of viewings. The landlord disputed that this was ever agreed. Nothing was ever written confirming such an agreement.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, the landlord also has a right to show certain people through the property for the purpose of selling the property. Limits are set on this right and I find the landlord complied with these limits. It is customary for landlords to compensate tenants for the disruptions caused, but this is not a statutory requirement, and the absence of it does not mean that a consented viewing changes in nature to become a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant has not persuaded me that the ongoing nature of the viewings amounts to a breach of her quiet enjoyment. The claim is not proved.
Because has not succeeded with his claim, and [The tenant/s] has partially succeeded with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921233 — Exemplary damages at 41 Thornlow Street, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921233 — Exemplary damages at 41 Thornlow Street, Glendene, Auckland 0602

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