What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940093 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 4940093?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940093?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11008604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940093 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 4940093?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940093?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11008604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940093 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940093 — net $1,327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent	$300.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Return of bond not at Bond Centre	$500.00	Return of bond not at Bond Centre
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,327.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,327.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940093 — net $1,327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent	$300.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Return of bond not at Bond Centre	$500.00	Return of bond not at Bond Centre
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,327.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,327.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The Tribunal declares that there has been a failure to maintain in respect of the ranch slider lock.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the tenant attended the hearing. The landlord has told the Registry today, just before the hearing that he thought the hearing was not proceeding as he told those scheduling this hearing earlier that he could not make this time. He thought it would be re-scheduled.
However, the hearing was not re-scheduled and no adjournment request was made. The landlord has been served with notice of the hearing. The landlord was further made aware of the hearing proceeding via SMS message.
While it tries to accommodate requests as to availability the Tribunal cannot offer parties appointments at their own convenience. If this was the case all respondents could simply say when receiving notice of a hearing that they cannot make the hearing as scheduled — few cases would then be heard.
I offered, via the Registry, the landlord the opportunity to attend the hearing by telephone but he declined this. The hearing therefore proceeded in his absence.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond of $500, exemplary damages relating to a failure to lodge the bond and failure to appoint an agent when out of New Zealand and breach of quiet enjoyment. She also seeks a declaration in relation to a failure to maintain locks.
The landlord seeks compensation for the tenant keeping items from the tenancy. The landlord’s claims
The landlord did not attend this hearing. However, I heard some submissions and evidence in connection with the landlord’s claims in the previous jurisdiction hearing so I have considered this claim on the basis of the evidence available. The landlord’s claim as filed appears to relate to a dining table and wallpaper and compensation for the tenant having or disposing of these.
My order dated 17 September sets out the background but in summary the property used to be co-owned by the parties as they used to be in a relationship, but this ended. A relationship property agreement divided their property.
I find that the ownership of the dining table is a relationship property matter. Who owns this arises out of the interpretation of the relationship property agreement that I heard and have seen evidence that the parties signed. Therefore, ownership falls outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
The tenant provided me with probative evidence that the wallpaper pictured as being for sale in the landlord’s application was done prior to the tenancy commencing (and prior to the relationship property agreement) when the parties were selling renovation materials. Therefore, I find that this is also not a tenancy matter, and that this matter falls outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed. The tenant’s claims Failure to lodge the bond and return of the bond
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), with respect to failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive (the Bond Centre).
The tenant also seeks the return of $500 of the bond that she says is still outstanding to her from the bond.
The tenant says that she paid $2,400 as a bond and that from this the landlord has returned $1813.60.
The tenant provided evidence of paying the bond on 24 April of $2400 and the return of part of the bond. The landlord has lodged his own application that shows that $500 of the bond has not been returned.
The bond has not been lodged at the Bond Centre. Communication filed shows the landlord saying that he did not do this because he was in [overseas] and did not have facilities to lodge the bond.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant. For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond in accordance with the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages. 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 did not lodge the bond within 23 working days. The landlord did not lodge it at all. I find it 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.
I find that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond. I place no weight on the landlord’s ability not to lodge the bond from [overseas] as set out in an email from him. Lodging the bond is a simple online process. I accept the tenant’s submissions that the failure to lodge the bond has caused her stress and the need to come to the Tribunal to seek its recovery. It is in the public interest that tenants bonds are protected in the way established by the RTA.
The tenant provided an unpleasant message sent to her by the landlord, threatening to reveal personal information about her, dated 10 July 2024 when she referred to various breaches of the RTA. This supports the stress this has caused her. Had the bond been lodged as required the tenant would have been better protected.
I therefore award the tenant $500 in exemplary damages in respect of this breach.
The landlord has established no reason to keep the bond and therefore the $500 claimed by the tenant as a bond refund is also to be refunded to her by the landlord. Failure to appoint an agent when out of the country
Section 16A provides as follows: “16A Landlord must have agent if out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days (1) A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand. (2) A landlord who does not already have an agent and who knows that he or she will be out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must appoint an agent before he or she departs from New Zealand. (3) A landlord who does not already have an agent and who has been out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must promptly appoint an agent. (4) A landlord who appoints an agent under this section must, immediately after appointing the agent,— (a) notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service; and (b) if a bond is held in respect of the tenancy, notify the chief executive in the approved form of those particulars. (4A) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), the following must be notified with the agent’s contact address: (a) the agent’s contact mobile telephone number (if any): (b) the agent’s contact email address (if any). (5) An agent appointed under this section has, as against the tenant, all the rights and obligations of the landlord. (6) A landlord who fails to comply with this section— (a) commits an unlawful act; and (b) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.”
The tenant says that the landlord was out of the country in [overseas] for over 21 days. This is supported by an email from the landlord stating that he was out of the country and therefore unable to lodge the bond. In that email he says he was out of the country between 25 April and 13 July. He also said at the previous hearing that he left for [overseas] on 25 April. This is longer than 21 days.
I accept that no agent was appointed as required by the RTA. I therefore find that the landlord has breached the obligation to appoint an agent when out of New Zealand for longer than 21 days and has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages and the maximum that can be awarded for this breach is $1,500. See section 16A and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that this unlawful act was intentional. It is the intention of the act not the intention to act unlawfully that is relevant. There is no evidence that the landlord intended to appoint an agent.
No doubt the issues between the parties could have been much more effectively addressed had there been an agent in place. The bond would have been lodged. The importance of having someone local properly appointed as the landlord’s agent and able to deal with all issues concerning the tenancy is highlighted by Parliament’s decision to make it an unlawful act not to do so.
The tenant was entitled to have someone local and available to deal with issues they raised. That was not available to her throughout the majority of her short tenancy.
An award of exemplary damages is appropriate. I award the tenant $300 in respect of this breach which I consider to be fair given the length proven that the landlord was away and the length of the tenancy. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages. In relation to this part of her claim the tenant relies on an occasion before the tenancy began of the landlord coming into her workplace in March 2024. She says that the landlord was aggressive and threatening about the table (referred to above) which she says had come to her as part of a relationship property settlement.
She also refers to a message exchange on 10 July 2024 in which the landlord and tenant exchanged messages about potential RTA breaches and the landlord responded to the tenant with an unpleasant message saying “two can play that game” and proceeding to threaten to tell two particular people personal information about her.
The message sent on 10 July took place after the tenancy had ended on 9 July 2024. The District Court has confirmed that exemplary damages cannot be awarded for enjoyment breaches from landlord after the tenancy ended Sibilis v Croft and Byrt [2023] NZDC 26882. I find that this does not amount to interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment – the use of the premises had ended.
I am also not satisfied that it is proven that the single event that the tenant says took place in March 2024 amounts to interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment. It was a single occasion, and further this took place before the tenancy had begun so there was also no use of the premises at this time.
This claim is dismissed. Locks
The tenant seeks a declaration as to whether the landlord had failed to maintain locks and refers to a ranch slider in her bedroom that could not be locked.
She refers to comments made by the landlord admitting this in the previous hearing.
Pursuant to section 45, RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. Section 46 also refers to the landlord providing and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
The tenant says that the ranch slider in her bedroom could not be secured and that the landlord knew about this as they discussed it.
I have revisited the comments the landlord made in the previous hearing (which focused on jurisdiction and case management). In that hearing the landlord admitted that he was aware of the lock being broken but that he then went away so it was not fixed. He therefore admits to the lock it being broken, it not being fixed, and that he knew about it.
I therefore declare that there has been a failure to maintain in relation to the ranch slider lock. Filing fee and suppression
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 (s 95A, RTA).
I award the tenant name suppression. She has requested this and has been substantially successful in her application.
I also award the landlord name suppression because the parties were previously in a relationship and matters arising in this decision, in part, refer to that. This means that publication of the landlord’s name may lead to the identification of the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940093 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940093 — Exemplary damages

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