What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4935874 about?

The tribunal order states: Manu Mohi must pay [The tenant/s] $4,137.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4935874?

Compensation: no working heater in t…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,160.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935874?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10896686-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4935874 about?

The tribunal order states: Manu Mohi must pay [The tenant/s] $4,137.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4935874?

Compensation: no working heater in t…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,160.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935874?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10896686-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 1 Milne Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4935874 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935874 — net $4,137.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond not lodged	$950.00	Refund of the bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Compensation: no working heater in the lounge	$500.00	no working heater in the lounge
Exemplary damages: ending the tenancy without grounds	$2,160.00	ending the tenancy without grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,137.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,137.00

Order

Manu Mohi must pay [The tenant/s] $4,137.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord was served using the information provided on the tenancy agreement and he did not attend the hearing.
The tenants rented a two bedroom house from Mr Mohi for $450 a week. They paid a bond which was not lodged. They signed an agreement which is not in the standard form, and which refers to tenants and boarders, a head tenant, and dispute resolution in the Disputes Tribunal. They moved in on 8 February 2024 and on 29 April they were asked to leave. They only got 51 days notice. The tenants filed an application because they have not got all their bond back and because of breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The questions I have to decide include: • Does the RTA apply to this living arrangement? • Were there breaches relating to the bond? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair the heater? • Was the landlord allowed to end this tenancy? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Does the RTA apply to this living arrangement?

There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. A tenancy means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent, and a tenancy agreement means an express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants to any other person a tenancy of the premises.
Mr Mohi referred to himself as the head tenant, but he did not live with the tenants. In fact he granted a tenancy of a residential dwelling place to the tenants. The tenants paid rent to live there. This is the definition of a residential tenancy and I find I have jurisdiction to decide the tenants’ application.

Were there breaches relating to the bond?

The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants provided me with some proof they paid $1800 as bond. There is no record of this being lodged. The parties used Facebook messenger to communicate during the tenancy and I have a copy of all the messages. Early on the landlord states that the bond will not be lodged and he will return it at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have received $850 as a bond refund. There are many messages where the tenants have asked for the bond money and been told the landlord cannot afford to repay the bond at the moment.
There is no claim against the bond so I have made an order that the remaining $950 be refunded immediately.
The bond was not lodged. I find the landlord 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) RTA.
It seems most likely to me from the messages that the landlord knew the bond should have been lodged and that he spent the bond money. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect on the tenants was extreme stress, exacerbated by the stress of moving at short notice. It is in tenants interests that bonds are safely held by an independent third party. There is public interest in landlord’s being penalised when they breach the legal requirements of the RTA. I allow $500 exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair the heater?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA, which requires landlords to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants have applied for compensation because they told the landlord on 20 March 2024 that the heat pump in the lounge was broken and it was never repaired. The tenants were without a heater for 13 weeks and the house was cold.
I find the landlord should have repaired the heater. There was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying for an appliance that did not work. The tenants have claimed $500 and that seems reasonable to me, especially since this was most likely a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards as well.

Was the landlord allowed to end this tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached his obligations when he ended the tenancy. From 11 February 2021 landlords cannot give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA.
Further, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord gave the tenants just over seven week notice. His original reason for ending the tenancy was that he had two couples who would pay twice the rent. The tenants got legal advice and emailed the landlord on 7 May 2024 setting out their understanding of the law relating to bonds and ending tenancies. Five minutes later the landlord replied - Twenty minutes later he messaged again and said he was moving into the house with his kids.
The landlord gave notice by Facebook messenger. I have read the exchanges. The notices are not valid notices because: • they do not contain the correct information • they do not contain a valid reason for ending the tenancy • they do not give the required notice, which is either 63 or 90 days (he gave 51).
I find the landlord did not have a valid reason to end the tenancy and he committed an unlawful act. The same considerations for exemplary damages apply. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted intentionally. Landlords are deemed to know the law about giving notice if they are renting. Rather than admit the mistake and ask to withdraw the notice the landlord made up another reason. The effect on the tenants was panic, stress, sleepless nights, and all the hassle of moving house. It is in tenants interests that they have the chance to settle into a home and not have to move at the whim of the landlord. There is public interest in landlords paying a penalty when they decide the RTA does not apply to them.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2160. Again this is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of previous orders.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants also claimed there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. 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) RTA.
I have considered the tenants’ submissions and the communication. I find the breach of quiet enjoyment mostly related to the lack of a heater and the way the tenancy ended. I have already allowed compensation and exemplary damages for these breaches. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have made an application for suppression. 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 tenants are the most successful party and suppression is allowed. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935874 — net $4,137.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond not lodged	$950.00	Refund of the bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Compensation: no working heater in the lounge	$500.00	no working heater in the lounge
Exemplary damages: ending the tenancy without grounds	$2,160.00	ending the tenancy without grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,137.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,137.00

Order

Manu Mohi must pay [The tenant/s] $4,137.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. The landlord was served using the information provided on the tenancy agreement and he did not attend the hearing.
The tenants rented a two bedroom house from Mr Mohi for $450 a week. They paid a bond which was not lodged. They signed an agreement which is not in the standard form, and which refers to tenants and boarders, a head tenant, and dispute resolution in the Disputes Tribunal. They moved in on 8 February 2024 and on 29 April they were asked to leave. They only got 51 days notice. The tenants filed an application because they have not got all their bond back and because of breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The questions I have to decide include: • Does the RTA apply to this living arrangement? • Were there breaches relating to the bond? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair the heater? • Was the landlord allowed to end this tenancy? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Does the RTA apply to this living arrangement?

There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. A tenancy means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent, and a tenancy agreement means an express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants to any other person a tenancy of the premises.
Mr Mohi referred to himself as the head tenant, but he did not live with the tenants. In fact he granted a tenancy of a residential dwelling place to the tenants. The tenants paid rent to live there. This is the definition of a residential tenancy and I find I have jurisdiction to decide the tenants’ application.

Were there breaches relating to the bond?

The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants provided me with some proof they paid $1800 as bond. There is no record of this being lodged. The parties used Facebook messenger to communicate during the tenancy and I have a copy of all the messages. Early on the landlord states that the bond will not be lodged and he will return it at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have received $850 as a bond refund. There are many messages where the tenants have asked for the bond money and been told the landlord cannot afford to repay the bond at the moment.
There is no claim against the bond so I have made an order that the remaining $950 be refunded immediately.
The bond was not lodged. I find the landlord 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) RTA.
It seems most likely to me from the messages that the landlord knew the bond should have been lodged and that he spent the bond money. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect on the tenants was extreme stress, exacerbated by the stress of moving at short notice. It is in tenants interests that bonds are safely held by an independent third party. There is public interest in landlord’s being penalised when they breach the legal requirements of the RTA. I allow $500 exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair the heater?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA, which requires landlords to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants have applied for compensation because they told the landlord on 20 March 2024 that the heat pump in the lounge was broken and it was never repaired. The tenants were without a heater for 13 weeks and the house was cold.
I find the landlord should have repaired the heater. There was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying for an appliance that did not work. The tenants have claimed $500 and that seems reasonable to me, especially since this was most likely a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards as well.

Was the landlord allowed to end this tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached his obligations when he ended the tenancy. From 11 February 2021 landlords cannot give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA.
Further, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord gave the tenants just over seven week notice. His original reason for ending the tenancy was that he had two couples who would pay twice the rent. The tenants got legal advice and emailed the landlord on 7 May 2024 setting out their understanding of the law relating to bonds and ending tenancies. Five minutes later the landlord replied - Twenty minutes later he messaged again and said he was moving into the house with his kids.
The landlord gave notice by Facebook messenger. I have read the exchanges. The notices are not valid notices because: • they do not contain the correct information • they do not contain a valid reason for ending the tenancy • they do not give the required notice, which is either 63 or 90 days (he gave 51).
I find the landlord did not have a valid reason to end the tenancy and he committed an unlawful act. The same considerations for exemplary damages apply. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted intentionally. Landlords are deemed to know the law about giving notice if they are renting. Rather than admit the mistake and ask to withdraw the notice the landlord made up another reason. The effect on the tenants was panic, stress, sleepless nights, and all the hassle of moving house. It is in tenants interests that they have the chance to settle into a home and not have to move at the whim of the landlord. There is public interest in landlords paying a penalty when they decide the RTA does not apply to them.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2160. Again this is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of previous orders.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants also claimed there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. 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) RTA.
I have considered the tenants’ submissions and the communication. I find the breach of quiet enjoyment mostly related to the lack of a heater and the way the tenancy ended. I have already allowed compensation and exemplary damages for these breaches. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have made an application for suppression. 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 tenants are the most successful party and suppression is allowed. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935874 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 5, 1 Milne Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935874 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 5, 1 Milne Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Does the RTA apply to this living arrangement?

Were there breaches relating to the bond?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair the heater?

Was the landlord allowed to end this tenancy?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Does the RTA apply to this living arrangement?

Were there breaches relating to the bond?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair the heater?

Was the landlord allowed to end this tenancy?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions