What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929097 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 4929097?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $1,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929097?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11430998-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929097 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 4929097?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $1,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929097?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11430998-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

62A Larchwood Avenue, Westmere, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4929097 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4929097 — net $2,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$250.00	fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: content of agreement	$400.00	content of agreement
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$1,750.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,427.00
Bond	$4,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,427.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4929097 — net $2,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$250.00	fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: content of agreement	$400.00	content of agreement
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$1,750.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,427.00
Bond	$4,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,427.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlords also prefer suppression but the grounds in s.95A RTA are not established.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Alumbradha Pfeiffenberger, Harrison Jordan must pay [The tenant/s] $2,427.00 immediately, calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords were represented by Mr Jordan. Mr Jordan confirms that Ms Pfeiffenberger is aware of the hearing but has chosen not to attend.
For the tenants [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] appeared in person. [Tenant 3] and [Tenant 4] appeared by teleconference. [Tenant 5] was unable to be contacted on the number provided. Background
A tenancy agreement for these premises was entered into between Ms Pfeiffenberger, who I am told is the owner of the premises, for a term from 4 February 2023 to 4 February 2024 (“prior agreement”). The tenants under that prior agreement were [Tenant 4], [Tenant 3], [Tenant 5] and two others.
The other 2 tenants moved out and this agreement was signed with the current tenants. This agreement records the landlord as Mr Jordan, who I understand to be Ms Pfeiffenberger’s partner. It is for a term from 23 February 2024 to 23 August 2024. The parties were aware that Mr Jordan was acting as Ms Pfeiffenberger’s agent.
The bond paid under the prior agreement was not lodged with the Bond Centre. When the other tenants moved out their portion of the bond was repaid to them. The new tenants, [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2], paid the landlord their contribution to the bond on 15 February 2024. Completed bond forms were sent to the landlord on 10 March 2024.
The tenants txt Mr Jordan on 1 April 2024 asking about their bond receipt. Mr Jordan said he would lodge it the next day. The $4,600.00 bond was lodged on 1 April 2024 and remains at the Bond Centre.
On 21 May 2024 the landlords gave the tenants 90 days’ notice that because the property was to be put on the market for sale, the tenancy would not extend beyond the end of the fixed term on 23 August 2024.
The notice says, “...there will be some touch up work happening around the house in the next few weeks.”
Over the following week there were negotiations between the parties about access to the premises for the improvement work to be carried out, the extent of that work and compensation for the disruption. The landlords proposed that major renovation work would be carried out noting, “.....so as you can see there was a lot of work needed to be done before we take photos (day time TBC) and list the property. The reason for the short time frame is because we have to run our campaign before the school holidays start in July. I'm sorry for any inconvenience or disruption this may cause but it has to be done. The great trade off for you all is that the vendor will be doing all of this at their cost and means you won't have to do or pay for a massive clean and making repairs to anything yourselves when you move on.”
The parties met on 30 May 2024 after which Mr. Jordan txt, “...thanks for your time tonight with the flat, I know there is a bit to happen in the next week but hopefully we can make it work so everyone is happy. The owners said they can give a 50% rent reduction for next week while carpet and painting is done as they understand this can be a bit disruptive for you....” The tenants replied, declining that offer of compensation, noting, “....we understand you are working to a tight deadline but we hope you can understand that this is pretty invasive at very short notice with minimal compensation. We want to work together but please remember that this is our home for the next three months. In recognition of this we would expect adequate compensation that reflects the disruption to our home environment during the entire renovation and campaign period.”
Following a further discussion on 31 May between the landlords and the tenants, the tenants confirmed that, “We are okay with the following: • Blinds • Curtains • Kitchen lino • Bathroom vanity touch ups • Minor painting touch ups outside of rooms • All outdoor work We are also happy for the downstairs room wall to be painted that had the brackets on it.”
That e-mail also noted, “As for the maintenance work that was mentioned, because the tenancy agreement wasn't filled out to the entirety can you please put in writing what you believe to be our responsibility to fix before we leave and we can discuss.”
The work began on 4 June 2024. The tenants say that agreements they had made to allow the necessary work to be done there were breached in the following ways: • the water blasting that was meant to begin at 8:00am on 4 June was delayed until 3:00pm • despite warnings being given by the tenants about the seals around the doors and windows, the water blasting caused water damage to some property of the tenants • on 5 June the painters arrived late • 6 June the painters were around the house all day • the tenants say they had made it clear that Friday 7 th did not suit them for tradespeople to be at the house but that they were then pressured to agree to an extension and it was agreed the painters could be there on Friday 7 June till 12:00pm latest • when the painters arrived on 7 June the landlords were not there to let them in and they knocked on the door waking up a tenant who had been working a night shift, the painting work had still not been finished by midday and the tenants had to vacate the property with the painters still there • they found signs that the tradespeople had done additional work, sanding and painting doors, that was not agreed • posters had been removed from a wall that was not supposed to be painted, causing damage that they were blamed for • painters left rubbish bins filled with their waste and non-recyclable rubbish in recycling bins.
On Sunday 9 June the landlords sent the tenant a lengthy e-mail with the proposed viewings/ open homes schedule, confirming that cleaners would be at the premises that day to clean, hang curtains and repair a broken venetian blind, to confirm that the photo shoot was booked for the following Monday and that , “...basically the brief is minimalistic, so if the tenants could very kindly declutter as much as possible throughout the house (such as hide shoes, laundry, loose items etc) and have the building presented as lovely as they normally do, that would be amazing thank you. Also please hide anything they don't want to be seen on this out on display. Also please can I ask if they could also leave the kitchen and bathrooms as tidy as possible for me and hide all shampoos and soaps etc in the bathroom draws in a basket that I can put in the garage during the shoot and put back again afterwards.”
The tenants were frustrated that in their view, assurances they had been given about the extent and timing of the work to be carried out had not been met and the only thing the tenants had asked to be done, replacement of the blinds in one of the bedrooms, had still not been completed. They notified the landlords that they wanted to postpone the photo shoot.
The parties reached an impasse with the tenants saying, “Please stop all access by third parties for further renovations or photo shoots for marketing purposes until we've had an opportunity to seek further legal advice.”
After that advice, the impasse continued. The landlords were not able to gain access to have the photo shoot completed or for viewings to take place. Access to allow a Council inspection to take place was also denied by the tenants.
The tenancy ended on 23 August 2024. No issues with the condition of the premises were raised by the landlords at the final inspection. Bond
Under s.22B RTA: “If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.”
No such counterclaim has been filed and the bond must be returned to the tenants.
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 landlords already had the bond contribution from 3 of the tenants and received the bond contribution from [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] on 15 February 2024. As noted the bond was lodged on 1 April 2024 after a reminder from the tenants.
Mr Jordan says they were not in breach because the bond was lodged within 23 working days of receiving the bond forms from the tenants. That however is not the obligation. As bond money received from the tenants was not lodged withing 23 working days of the landlords receiving it, the landlords committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA. In this context, it is the act of not lodging the bond that needs to be intentional, not an intention to act unlawfully.
The landlords’ position is that the bond was not lodged on time because they were unaware of the obligation to do so.
There was no significant detriment caused to the tenants as their bond was lodged immediately Mr Jordan was reminded of the need to do so - although it does seem to me a distinct possibility that the bond would have remained held by the landlords had the tenants not followed up. I also take into account that for three of the tenants, the landlord wrongfully retained their bond for a much longer period. There is a public interest in landlords being aware of and complying with such fundamental obligations.
Weighing those considerations I find that a modest award of exemplary damages would be just. Content of the Agreement
Section 13A RTA requires a landlord to ensure that the tenancy agreement contains specified information. That mandatory information includes: • an insulation statement • a Healthy Homes compliance statement • insurance information.
Failure to provide any of that information is in an awful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
None of that information was provided by the landlords who have thereby committed an unlawful act.
Again Mr Jordan says the landlords were unaware of the obligation to provide that information and relied on what he saw as a positive relationship with the tenants.
It is proved that the premises were compliant with Healthy Homes standards, with a compliance report predating the tenancy having been provided in evidence. Mr Jordan accepts that the tenants were not given a copy of that report.
It is hard to accept that the landlords were unaware of the obligation to provide that information. The form of agreement used quite clearly specifies the need to include that information. It was simply not done.
The breach caused no direct loss to the tenants although there was a concern that they might be blamed for damage to the premises caused through non compliance with healthy home standards and wanted to check that.
The fundamental point is that the landlords ought to have been aware of that legal responsibility but chose not to meet it. The public interest requires that decision to be recognised by modest award of exemplary damages.

Was the tenants right to quiet enjoyment of the premises breached?

Section 38 RTA requires provides: “(1) The tenant shall be entitled to have 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. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The landlord acknowledges that the tenants were entitled to withhold consent for the improvement work the landlord wanted to carry out during the tenancy, to prepare the premises for sale.
The correspondence shows that the tenants took the responsible position of wanting to be cooperative while being realistic about the extent to which that renovation work would impact on their use and enjoyment of the premises.
Mr Jordan asserts that there was an agreement in place under which the tenants accepted as compensated for those impacts, the landlord paying for cleaning and garden work and replacing curtains that the tenants would otherwise have had to be responsible for at the end of the tenancy.
With respect, the evidence does not support that interpretation. Those benefits were advanced by the landlords as reasons it would be in the tenants’ interests to consent to the work being done but I find no evidence of an agreement to that effect. The tenants do not accept responsibility for replacing the curtains and cleaned the premises at the end of the tenancy anyway.
Fundamentally, what the evidence shows is that the tenants, “....reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy..” was very significantly impacted by the landlords’ wish to carry our improvement work, for the landlords’ benefit, to assist in selling the premises. The tenants are entitled to compensation for having paid full rent for premises they were not able to fully enjoy as a consequence.
That breach of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment occurred through the direct impacts of the work being carried out in and around the premises and also in having to deal with the ongoing negotiations, discussions and pressure (intended or not) brought to bear by the landlords in understandably wanting to have as much work completed as possible to fit in with their preferred sale timeline.
In assessing reasonable compensation, I take into account that the landlord is correct in saying that the tenants were not entitled to deny access for a properly notified visit for the Council inspection (see s.48(3)(f) RTA) - although that visit itself would have been a further intrusion into the tenants’ quiet enjoyment, for the landlords’ benefit.
The viewings/ open home schedule proposed by the landlord was unreasonably intrusive and the landlord had asserted that no compensation for that intrusion was necessary. Nevertheless, in terms of s.48(3) RTA, the tenants were not entitled to deny all access to the premises for viewings.
As a consequence, the landlords were unable to meet their intended marketing programme.
It is not proved that curtains were damaged during this tenancy and the evidence does not enable any assessment to be made of any loss suffered, having regard to existing age/ condition/ depreciation allowance.
As I view the evidence, for the week during which the work was being carried out, the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises was significantly impacted. In the period around that week their peaceful enjoyment of the premises was impacted by the ongoing negotiations, discussions and communications with the landlord about the proposed work, again noting that it was to be carried out for the landlords’ sole benefit.
Weighing the above considerations, I find that compensation approximating 1 1/2 weeks’ rent would be fair.
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929097 — Exemplary damages at 62A Larchwood Avenue, Westmere, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929097 — Exemplary damages at 62A Larchwood Avenue, Westmere, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenants right to quiet enjoyment of the premises breached?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenants right to quiet enjoyment of the premises breached?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions