What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941333 about?

The tribunal order states: Theresa Parkin and Murray Silcock must pay [The tenant/s] $5,027.00

How much money was awarded in case 4941333?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941333?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11003357-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941333 about?

The tribunal order states: Theresa Parkin and Murray Silcock must pay [The tenant/s] $5,027.00

How much money was awarded in case 4941333?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941333?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11003357-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4941333 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941333 — net $5,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$1,500.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint agent	$500.00	Failure to appoint agent
General damages	$3,000.00	General damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,027.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 October 2024. The landlord and his agent attended by teleconference.

The premises are in a rural area outside [Area]. The house is a 2 bedroom 1980’s Lockwood style on approximately 1,400 sqm of land.

The tenancy commenced on 26 April 2024 and ended on 10 June 2024.

The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Similarly, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.

In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner. The parties expressed strong feelings of disappointment and stress with how things evolved during the course of the tenancy.

The tenant claims to be considered were; o Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. o Healthy Homes Standards - heating o Breach of quiet enjoyment. o Unlawful entry. o Retaliatory notice. o Landlord acting to terminate without grounds. o Failure to appoint an agent where the landlord is outside New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days. o Compensation for internet costs o Outgoings not separately metered. o Compensation for moving costs. o Exemplary damages. o Reimbursement of the filing fee. State of repair

Section 45 RTA sets out the responsibilities of a landlord. Amongst the requirements, the landlord is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and cleanliness. A failure to comply with those requirements is an unlawful act. Where the landlord commits an unlawful act intentionally, exemplary damages can be aw awarded to a maximum of $7,200.00.

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair even if the tenant has notice of the state of the premises when entering into the tenancy agreement.

“Premises” is defined in the RTA as including any land.

The house is on rural premises and is surrounded by substantial grounds. The tenant said that when she arrived to collect the keys to the house at the commencement of the tenancy, she found that the gardens were overgrown. Large branches from the surrounding trees were strewn over the grounds. Grass was growing out of the guttering. The tenants said that it did not appear that any garden or grounds maintenance had been done for some time. The tenants indicated to the landlord that she had expected some maintenance to have been done. The tenant considered the grounds to be a potential fire hazard. The tenant said in her evidence that “If you are a gardener its heart breaking. If not, it won’t matter.”

The landlord said that the grass growing in the gutter was removed at the end of the first week of the tenancy. The landlord said that the condition of the land surrounding the premises at the commencement of the tenancy was to a standard that the landlord was happy with and all that they expected of the tenant was that the land would be returned to them in that condition at the end of the tenancy. The surrounding trees were deciduous and leaves had fallen to the ground. They were damp and not a fire risk. The tenant had seen the premises two weeks prior to moving in and so shouldn’t have been shocked at their condition two weeks later. Analysis

The requirement that premises be both clean and in a reasonable state of repair applies to the land surrounding the premises.

The fact that a tenant may have been aware of the condition of the premises prior to moving in is not a defence to the failure.

What is “reasonably clean and tidy”? The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises. The test is objective and is not based on the subjective opinions of either the landlord or the tenant. In Housing New Zealand v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993, the Tribunal held that “reasonably tidy” grounds are not perfect prizewinning grounds, but neither are they grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather it is something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy”.

In deciding this issue, I consider that this being a rural property is a relevant consideration. What might be reasonable in a rural setting may not be reasonable in a residential setting. I have reviewed the photos of the land. The burden of proving that the premises were not in a reasonable state is on the tenant. I am not persuaded on the evidence heard and the photos provided that the premises were not in a reasonable state. The application is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards – Heating.

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under s.45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.

In this case I have determined that:

A fire place was present in the living area. The fire place was inspected the day before the tenancy was to commence and the landlords became aware that the fault was such that the fire place could not be used.

The landlord informed the tenant that a replacement would take between four and six weeks. Th tenant was provided with two heaters and a dehumidifier. The tenant explained that due to the high ceiling, the heaters were not effective and the premises were cold and mould developed.

The tenancy commenced on 26 April 2024, which is between 28 August 2022 and 3 March 2025. In those circumstances, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement of this tenancy to comply with the heating requirements. The tenancy did not last 120 days from its commencement, and accordingly the application is dismissed. 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.

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 tenants claim is based on a number of issues. The premises form part of a larger piece of land owned by the landlords. The landlord has another tenant “[redacted]” who lives on the neighbouring piece of land. [The other tenant] appears to act as maintenance person for the landlord.

The tenant says that she was aware that her Tenancy Agreement included a clause under which no pets were “permitted on the premises”.

[The other tenant] owned a large white German Sheppard. The tenant complained that the dog would regularly come onto her land and on occasion enter the premises. The tenant said that the dog was not aggressive but could be excitable. On at least one occasion, both [The other tenant]’s dog and another dog came onto the tenant’s property. The tenant did not know who the second dog belonged to.

The landlord did not dispute the evidence and said that he should have raised the issue with [The other tenant].

The second issue relates to a small shed or garage on the tenanted land. The shed is sited approximately 4 metres from the tenants bedroom. The tenant conducts a range of home based commercial operations. When she first looked at the premises, she saw the shed and considered it would be appropriate for the storage of all of her tools and business operation equipment. There is no reference to the shed in the Tenancy Agreement.

The tenant says that she was told by the landlord on the day that she was moving into the premises that the shed was not available for her use as the ride on mower that [The other tenant] used to mow the lawns in the adjoining land was kept there. The tenant says that this was the first time that she was told that the shed was excluded from the tenancy. I record that the Tenancy Agreement had been signed by the parties the week preceding the tenant commencing the tenancy.

The landlord employed Royale Eco Cleaning Limited (“Royale”) to remove mould on the ceiling. Morris Moses from Royale carried out the work.

Upon completion of the work, Morris Moses was to remove a fan blower from the premises. The tenant says that no notice of the contractor arriving on 20 May 2024 was given. On that day at approximately 10.45 am, the tenant had just got out of the shower when she heard someone knocking at the door. As she was not dressed yet and was not expecting anyone, she did not answer the door and thought that whoever was there would simply leave.

The doors were locked and the windows closed.

It subsequently became apparent to the tenant that the person at the door was Morris Moses. Morris Moses moved from the front door to the bedroom window. He tried to gain access to the house by checking all the doors and windows.

After approximately an hour, the tenant said that she received a txt message from Morris Moses saying that he was at the house.

The tenant replied that she was not at home and that she had been expecting him the previous day. She told him to return when she was available.

Rather than leaving, Morris Moses has placed his ladder against a window to try to gain access. The tenant was both frightened and anxious.

The tenant sent a further txt message to Morris saying that he was on her property and she was not home. She said that she had a camera set up and he should leave the property. She told him that this was “a demand and not a request”. Morris Moses carried on trying to gain entry for a further 20 minutes.

Finally, the tenant sent a txt saying, “I believe you are still there, even after my request to leave, best you leave until I am at home.” Only then did Morris Moses collect his ladder and leave. The whole incident occurred over a period of nearly two hours. The tenant was most upset. She explained that she was single woman living in a rural setting. She was apprehensive about the possibility of his returning.

The landlord said that he had been informed by Morris Moses that he had given the tenant prior notice of his intention to call at the premises and that she should have been expecting him. The landlord said that whilst there may have been a miscommunication about Morris Moses coming to the premises, there could be no excuse or explanation of what occurred after he was unable to gain entry. As soon as they received a complaint from the tenant about the behaviour, the landlord told Morris Moses to cease work, collect his equipment and leave the premises.

A landlord is responsible for the actions of his contractors. Having heard the evidence of the landlord, I fully accept that they were not aware of the actions nor did they condone them.

The Tribunal finds that the evidence of this combination of events does disclose a breach of the tenant’s peace comfort and privacy.

The Tribunal in considering exemplary damages must then consider if the behaviour has caused "trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person".

The Tribunal finds that the combination of incidents is such that there has been a pattern of behaviour towards the tenant, so as to cause the tenant to be anxious and simply tired out from the behaviour. I find that the landlord has 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.

With regards to the landlord’s intention, the Tribunal considers that the landlord has simply overlooked their obligations to allow the tenant to have quiet enjoyment of the premises. The initial problem with the fireplace was not a matter within the control of the landlord, but subsequent events disclose a lack of “hands on control”. This may in part be due to their control of the premises at a distance.

It is in the interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have the quiet enjoyment of the tenanted premises. The effect on the tenant has been substantial. The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $1,500.00. Dampness

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which require that every house must be free from dampness. This requirement must be interpreted reasonably and is not breached if a landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate conditions in the house.

A brief history shows that the fireplace became inoperable almost just prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The repair was to take 4-6 weeks The landlord offered to provide electric heaters. The tenant purchased two electric heaters, but explained that the house had a very high ceiling and the heaters simply didn’t provide sufficient heat.

The tenant soon discovered mould on the curtains and on the ceiling. The tenant contacted the landlord about the issue. The landlord contacted Eco Clean to attend to the issue. On 7 May 2024, the landlord received a message from Morris Moses that the mould was extensive and caused by a lack of heating. The tenant resorted to living in the lounge only .

The landlord instructed Royale on 3 May 2024. Work was carried out on 6 and 7 May 2024 to remove the mould. The report from Royale states that the main factor causing the mould was a lack of heating. The addition of heating, the use of a dehumidifier and keeping the house well-ventilated were all suggested.

The Tribunal considers that the landlord has not acted to keep the house free from dampness, but has acted promptly to address the issue once it was brought to their attention. The application is accordingly dismissed. Retaliatory Notice

A claim that a notice of termination of a tenancy has been retaliatory must be filed by the tenant within 28 working days of receipt of the notice (see s.54(1) RTA). Notice of termination of the tenancy was given to the tenant on 15 May 2024. This application was filed with Tenancy Services on 28 August 2024. The application is out of time and is dismissed. Landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds.

Section 60AA RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to give or purport to give a notice terminating a tenancy knowing that they are not entitled under the RTA to give notice.

Notice to terminate the tenancy was given by email dated 15 May 2024.

Notice was given on the grounds set out at s.51(2)(f) RTA, that the landlord intends carrying out extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken. The work or a material step is required to be taken within 90 days after the termination date.

The notice states that as a result of the extensive mould, investigation and repair was required. The notice indicates that the landlord was concerned that any investigation into the mould may cause any mould present, which had not at that point been discovered, to spread and cause harm to the tenant.

The tenant said that she had received notice that the contractor had resolved the mould issue. The replacement fire place was not far away from being ready. The tenant said that it became available a few days after the end of the tenancy.

The tenant said she had wanted to stay at the premises long term and was devastated when she discovered the tenancy was to end.

The important element in any claim under s.51(2)(f) RTA is knowledge. Did the landlord know that they were not entitled to give the notice when the notice was given? Knowledge attained after that time by the landlord is not relevant to the Tribunal’s enquiry.

It is well known that some varieties of mould can have a serious effect on health. The nature of mould is such that it is not always apparent to the naked eye. In the circumstances, I consider that the landlord did not give notice knowing that they were not entitled to. The landlord was motivated out of concern for the tenant’s health and the need to fully investigate the mould issue. It may be that the landlord was acting out of an overabundance of caution. The notice included an offer to reimburse half of the rent paid to date to the tenant and a further $1,000.00 for any inconvenience caused. That offer was not finalised by the parties.

The Tribunal finds that the requirement of landlord “knowledge” has not been proven on the balance of probabilities and the claim is dismissed. Failure to appoint an agent

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.

A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) RTA.

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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days. The landlord attended this hearing by teleconference from outside New Zealand.

The landlord accepts that they are essentially overseas on a semi-permanent basis. They say that an agent was appointed by them. That agent is based in Wellington.

The tenant said that she had no knowledge of the agent. She had never had any correspondence or telephone calls with the agent. All contact had been with Theresa Parkin, whilst she was in New Zealand or with Murray Silcock.

The agent is not referred to in the tenancy agreement. The only involvement of the agent appears to be that he is that he is copied into correspondence from the landlord.

The agent’s evidence was that whilst he had been appointed, he had never spoken to or written to the tenant.

Section 16A(4) RTA requires a landlord to notify a tenant of the agents name and details immediately, where an agent has been appointed . No notice has been given. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The landlord is taken to be aware of their obligations under the RTA. A landlord cannot simply say that they were not aware of their obligations to avoid liability. The operation of a tenancy is a commercial tenancy where the landlord is deemed to be aware of its obligations. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have a local agent available to deal with issues as and when they arise. Taking those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00. Internet costs.

The tenant said that she was informed that there was an internet connection at the premises. The tenant had her own Vodafone internet connection box for wireless internet.

Upon moving in, the tenant discovered that her internet service connection box did not work. She rang an internet provider who advised her that a rural broadband connection could be provided at a cost of $487.00 for a 2 year contract.

When the tenancy ended, the provider kindly let the tenant out of her fixed term contract at a cost of one month’s connection fee. The total cost to the tenant was one month’s usage and one month’s fee for the disconnection.

There was no obligation on the landlord to provide internet services as a part of the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal has found that the termination was neither retaliatory nor was it without grounds. One month of the charge relates to the tenant’s usage. The other month was for the disconnection. The landlord is not responsible or liable for the costs. The claim is dismissed. Outgoings

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.

Where utilities are shared between more than one dwelling or building, the landlord will not be able calculate a tenant’s share of outgoings without a separate water meter or check meter. A tenant is therefore not liable to pay for electricity charges on a meter shared with other premises (Green v McGregor [2015] NZTT Waitakere 1292). Even if the tenant’s electricity usage can be calculated, a strict application of s 39(3) RTA means they will not be liable for fixed line charges, as they are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises.

Section 11(1) RTA provides that any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with any provision of the Act is of no effect. However, the District Court has held that section 85 RTA should be considered when deciding whether to strictly apply s 39(3) and order a full refund of utilities paid by the tenant (Geraghty and Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813). In that case, the District Court directed a rehearing of the original order to refund $6,432.48. At the rehearing the tenant confirmed she was not seeking a full refund of her electricity payments, and the Tribunal found that a strict application of s 39(3) would produce an unfair and unjust result.

The power was shared between the tenant and the neighbouring tenant, [The other tenant].

The landlord explained that both the premises and the main house had separate meters and so a calculation of the precise usage was possible. The invoices to the tenant were for $122.53 and $114.42.

The first invoice included a daily line fee charge for the first invoice of $31.37. The invoice was calculated for the period 16 April 2024 to 15 May 2024. The tenancy commenced on 26 April 2024, 10 days later.

The landlord said that no claim would be made by them for electricity usage. The Tribunal declares that there is no obligation on the tenant to meet and electricity charges to the landlord. The invoicing has been incorrect and confusing at best. Moving costs.

Having found that the termination was not retaliatory nor without grounds, the landlord there is no obligation on the landlord to pay moving costs. General Damages.

In this order the Tribunal has found that the landlord did breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The actions of the contractor can only be described as unacceptable. Had the landlord been present in New Zealand to attend to the issues raised personally, matters may not have escalated. The tenant was for a period of time without heating and limited in her use of the premises. Her ability to operate her business has been compromised.

The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award general damages (see Birch v Otuatahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667). In this case the factual matrix is such that the tenant has been harmed emotionally. During her evidence, the tenant expressed how upset and angry the events made her. The landlord has apologised for any distress caused.

The Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (no2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors; ▪ The nature of the breach; ▪ The duration of the breach; and ▪ The effect of the breach on the party.

In Tenant v Ezy Rentals NZ Limited [2022] NZTT 4323927 the Tribunal helpfully set out “ bands” of damage awards. They are; • At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment; an award of $200 to $2,000. • Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, tension or anxiety; an award of $2,000 to $3,000.00. • At the upper end of the scale , where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation or fear an award of over $3,000.00.

I accept that the tenant was hugely upset by the events. The tenant has experienced inconvenience in having to end her tenancy early, along with the fear induced by the contractor’s inappropriate actions. The events were not long lasting in duration. I consider that the emotional harm falls at the lower end of the third band. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant damages of $3,000.00.

As [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application for suppression is dismissed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941333 — net $5,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$1,500.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint agent	$500.00	Failure to appoint agent
General damages	$3,000.00	General damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,027.00