What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959194?

The tribunal order states: James Tucker and Lindsay Tucker must pay Ida Yassein $527.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4959194?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959194?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11794791-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959194?

The tribunal order states: James Tucker and Lindsay Tucker must pay Ida Yassein $527.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4959194?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959194?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11794791-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8B Holsworthy Road, Lower Vogeltown, New Plymouth Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959194 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959194 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund bond	$500.00	Refund bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959194 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund bond	$500.00	Refund bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

James Tucker and Lindsay Tucker must pay Ida Yassein $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Tucker represented the landlords; his wife was unable to attend for health reasons. For ease, I will refer to the landlord in the singular. Background
The tenancy started on 12 April 2021 and ended on 6 June 2024.
The premises were located within the landlord’s home, but they were separate premises for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The section 5 RTA exclusions do not apply because the tenant had her own kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom with a designated front door entrance. The parties did not share facilities, even if they shared meals together sometimes as friends and reached an agreement about the payment of utilities.
The friendship between the tenant and Mrs Tucker was long standing. More recently, Mrs Tucker has gone into residential care. It was Mr Tucker’s intention to sell the premises. That was the reason why the tenancy ended.
On 1 August 2024, the tenant lodged her Tribunal application. She sought a refund of her bond, and a copy of the landlord’s rent records so she could be assured the rent she paid was accurate.
Today, the tenant confirmed that she simply wanted her bond back. She did not pursue the issue of rent. As I pointed out, she would be aware of the payments she had made. There was no suggestion that she had over-paid any rent.
I invited an oral application from the tenant for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond. She said she did not seek exemplary damages. After the morning adjournment (and the Tribunal suspects after speaking to her support person) she said she did want to claim exemplary damages. I said I would address that in my decision, and I will.
I suggested that the parties consider reaching a settlement. Each declined to do that. Mr Tucker said that his claims were advanced as a matter of principle. So, the Tribunal heard the applications in full. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Is the tenant entitled to her bond? •What about exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond? •Has the landlord proved claims against the tenant? Relevant statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends. A tenant must not cause careless or intentional damage to the premises. A tenant is responsible for the actions of persons at the premises with their consent.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 22B(2) RTA provides that 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.
I have referred to section 22B(2) RTA specifically to address Mr Tucker’s criticism of the Tribunal’s procedure. Why, he queried, should he have to lodge a claim for costs from the bond? The answer is this. That is what the law requires. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
As can be seen, before compensation is considered there must be a proven breach by the party from whom compensation is sought.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion

Is the tenant entitled to her bond?

The answer to this question is yes. The bond belongs to the tenant in law until a landlord proves a claim against it. For reasons that follow later, the landlord has not proven any claims against the tenant’s bond. What about exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond?
Now, I will address exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond.
The failure to lodge a bond within 23 working days after receiving it is a defined unlawful act – see section 19(2) RTA.
Although the tenant did not apply for exemplary damages in her application and made no oral application to amend the application when invited to (at least not until after the morning adjournment) she would not have succeeded even if I had amended the application.
That the Tribunal can award exemplary damages does not mean that it always does or should. A tenant must prove that any unlawful act by a landlord was committed intentionally.
Here, the tenancy began as an arrangement that arose from the friendship between the landlord Mrs Tucker and the tenant. Mr Tucker said they considered the relationship to be akin to a boarder situation.
I would not conclude that the landlord acted with intent by not lodging the bond. The landlord was negligent, but that is not sufficient. So, the Tribunal would not have awarded exemplary damages in this case.

Has the landlord proved claims against the tenant?

I will address each of the landlord’s 15 claims separately. The cost of installing a bollard/collision post – $907.58
The landlord has claimed $907.58 for the installation of a bollard which he says was needed to prevent the tenant causing damage to the premises when she parked her car.
This is not a claim for damage caused by the tenant. It was a preventative measure undertaken as a matter of choice. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Replacement cost of a mini oven - $449.99
In July 2023, the landlord purchased a replacement mini oven to replace the one at the tenant’s premises that had stopped working. He did so because his wife told him that the tenant needed a new oven.
This is not a claim for damage caused by the tenant; there is no proof she caused any damage to the oven careless or intentional. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Replace shower hose and fitting - $169.00
The landlord claims the cost of a flexible shower hose he states was damaged at the end of the tenancy. Yet, at the final inspection undertaken by the landlord’s agent, this damage was not recorded. The landlord has not proved that the tenant caused any careless or intentional damage that is beyond fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. The installation of an outdoor light - $211.77
The landlord seeks the cost of installing an outdoor light to assist the tenant when she returned from night shifts. The tenant said she was unaware of any additional light fitting. This is not a claim for damage but for a fitting the landlord willingly installed, and which remains at the premises. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Retuning TV – $80.00
After the tenant vacated, the landlord said he could not get the TV (which he purchased from her) to work so he had to call a technician. This is not a claim for tenant damage; it more probably relates to the operation of the landlord’s SKY connection which was shared. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Putting pot plants in place as a barrier – $50.00
The landlord said he put pot plants in place to act as a barrier between the premises and the space where the tenant parked. This is not a claim for tenant damage. The landlord elected to do this as a preventative measure. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Installing hose and fittings - $169.00
The landlord said he agreed to instal a hose and fittings so the tenant could water her garden. The hose burst due to high water pressure, and he had to replace it. The landlord has not proved that the tenant caused any careless or intentional damage. He had the option of simply decommissioning the tap if he believed that the tenant was not using it correctly. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Replace bathroom window catch - $43.13
The landlord said he replaced the bathroom window catch during the tenancy in about October 2023. The tenant said she was unaware of that. The landlord has not proved that the tenant caused any careless or intentional damage to the catch beyond fair wear and tear. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Reinstall clothesline - $50.00
The landlord said he took down the clothesline at the start of the tenancy at the tenant’s request and stored it. He has claimed the cost of reinstalling it. This is not a claim for tenant damage. The landlord elected to remove and store the clothesline. The reinstallation of it is not a cost for the tenant to bear. Replace smoke/heat alarm - $111.89
The landlord said that a smoke/heat alarm kept activating so he removed it as far as he could recall. This was a claim for replacing it. The tenant said she recalled there being 2 alarms, one near the bedroom which was removed and another in the kitchen which continued to operate.
Regardless of the parties’ recollections, it is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure that there are compliant working smoke alarms at the premises. The landlord has not identified any breach by the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Repair doorbell - $30.00
The landlord said the doorbell stopped working and had to be replaced. The tenant said she was unaware of that as the bell was never used. This is a usual maintenance issue. The landlord has not proved any claim for careless or intentional damage by the tenant. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Driveway repairs - $26.00
The landlord alleges that the tenant’s friend’s car caused damage to the asphalt driveway, which he and the landlord jointly repaired. The claim is for the cost of materials.
This claim is almost de minimis. As the tenant pointed out, the driveway was used by the neighbour behind the premises and by delivery people. Even if the tenant’s friend’s car caused this minor damage, it is difficult for the Tribunal to conclude that it was careless damage when nothing unusual was happening; the car was being operated in an expected manner. This is properly seen as a maintenance issue. It is dismissed. Replace toilet roll holder and toilet brush - $26.00
The landlord described the toilet roll holder as a ‘cheap one’ which would not function properly at the end of the tenancy. He said the toilet brush was missing. The tenant said she had no knowledge of either matter. She noted that the inspection carried out by the landlord’s agent did not identify these issues. Again, the landlord has not proved that the tenant caused damage to the toilet roll holder beyond fair wear and tear. If the brush was missing (and the evidence does not establish that) the landlord can simply replace it, something that is required from time to time anyway. This claim is dismissed. Installing an extractor fan timing switch - $318.89
The landlord said he had a timing switch installed on the bathroom extractor fan because the tenant sometimes forgot to turn off the fan which disturbed him and his wife at night. The tenant did not cause any damage to the switch. It was the landlord’s choice to install the timing switch. There is no statutory basis on which the Tribunal could award this cost to the landlord. It is dismissed. Cleaning - $125.00
The landlord accepts that the premises generally were left clean, but he said that his agent had provided a list of cleaning jobs not done, mostly in high or hard to reach places.
A tenant’s statutory responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not clean to a ‘motel standard’ or clean to a state where a new tenancy can immediately begin.
The landlord provided no pre and post tenancy photos for the Tribunal to objectively assess. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies. The agent’s list of cleaning required does not prove that the tenant failed in her statutory responsibility. This claim is dismissed. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $527.00 comprising the bond and the filing fee on the tenant’s successful application.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Comment
When I raised with the parties whether they wished to settle this dispute, the landlord said that for him it was a ‘matter of principle’. Claims advanced as matters of principle seldom succeed as they often have no legal substance. The landlord should have refunded the bond in which case the tenant would not have applied to the Tribunal (which was her only option).
The landlord was critical of the Tribunal’s procedure, something he intended to complain about. But his application seems to have been a retaliatory response to the tenant’s application dressed up as a claim for tenant damage. Rather than criticise the Tribunal’s procedure he might be better to reflect on his own actions pursuing a matter of principle that had no prospect of success. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959194 — Tenancy dispute at 8B Holsworthy Road, Lower Vogeltown, New Plymouth

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959194 — Tenancy dispute at 8B Holsworthy Road, Lower Vogeltown, New Plymouth

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to her bond?

Has the landlord proved claims against the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to her bond?

Has the landlord proved claims against the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions