What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4992768 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 4992768?

The reconciled net award was $200.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4992768?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4992768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11089549-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4992768 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 4992768?

The reconciled net award was $200.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4992768?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4992768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11089549-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4992768 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4992768 — net $200.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4992768 — net $200.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$200.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application (4992768) is withdrawn.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $200.00 immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [Tenant 1] $300.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for a variation of the tenancy agreement and one of the named tenants, [Tenant 1], has applied for exemplary damages as a result of alleged landlord breaches. Background
The fixed term tenancy commenced on around 16 January 2024 and was due to end on 21 January 2025. All named tenants signed a tenancy agreement with the landlord.
On around 28 July 2024, there appears to have been an alleged assault by [Tenant 1] against another named tenant, and a police acknowledgment form has been provided in respect of this.
The landlord advised that he asked [Tenant 1] to leave the property after he was told of the alleged assault. Other named tenants advised that they sought the landlord’s assistance as they no longer felt safe and were scared to be at the property.
It appears some named tenants have not been residing at the property since, due to the alleged assault incident and a broader breakdown in relations between the tenants.
There are elements within these claims of a tenant dispute that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear. Relevant facts from the tenant dispute are provided to the extent required to decide matters which do fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Landlord application (4992768)
On 18 October 2024 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for a variation of the tenancy agreement, to remove one of the named tenants, [Tenant 1], from the tenancy agreement as a result of the alleged assault incident.
Simultaneously, an application was made to the Disputes Tribunal to resolve a tenant only dispute (outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal). The day before the hearing, the tenants attended the Disputes Tribunal and I have been advised that the parties reached a resolution for [Tenant 1] to move out of the property, with conditions on how and when that would occur.
As a result, the landlord advised at the hearing that he no longer needed to seek a variation of the tenancy agreement and was instead seeking withdrawal of his application.
The landlord’s application (4992768) is therefore withdrawn. Tenant application (5043169)
One of the named tenants, [Tenant 1], has made a cross application specifically applying for exemplary damages from the landlord for what appears to be tenancy agreement breaches, failure to lodge bond, breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful eviction. Evidence has been submitted in respect of these claims, although it is hard to follow at times, I confirm that I have read and considered it all, even if it is not specifically referred to in this order.
The other named tenants do not support these claims and two named tenants gave evidence on behalf of the landlord.
I deal with each of these claims individually. Tenancy agreement breaches – failing to provide documentation
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) includes the minimum information that should be included in a tenancy agreement. This includes the landlord’s contact mobile telephone number (s13A(1)(aa)); a statement made and signed by the landlord that the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) and 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be) (s13A(1CA)) and that the landlord will include specific information about insurance of the premises.
[Tenant 1] claims that the tenancy agreement is missing: a. A phone number for the landlord. b. Information on the landlord’s insurance excess. c. Information about healthy homes compliance standards.
On review, the tenancy agreement provided to the Tribunal is missing this information. The landlord advised that this information does exist and that previous tenants have been provided with it. He also advised that he lives across the road, and that the tenants have his cell phone number (as is evident from the screen shots of text exchanges provided).
There appears to be no dispute however that a contact cell number, insurance, and healthy homes information was not included with the tenancy agreement when it was signed. This is fundamental information which a tenant must be given at the outset, in the tenancy agreement. A landlord who fails to ensure that the tenancy agreement includes the information in s13A(1)(aa), 1CA and (2) commits an unlawful act. See sections 13A(1)(1AAA) and 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA.
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.
As to whether exemplary damages are properly awarded on this issue, I note that there are three failures, a contact number, insurance information and a healthy homes statement. As a result, there is liability, potentially, to exemplary damages of $750.00 in respect of these failures.
It appears the landlord was not fully aware of these fundamental obligations, despite the requirement being included in the RTA for several years. However, like all citizens as a landlord he is deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is seen as intentional. 1 There is also a public interest in ensuring that landlords are marked out for failing to comply with these important obligations, and I consider it is appropriate to award exemplary damages at a modest level.
I therefore award $200.00 exemplary damages against the landlord in total for all three breaches in relation to failing to provide documentation. This amount is awarded to all named tenants. Failure to lodge bond
[Tenant 1] claims that the landlord has neglected his duties with respect to bond. They submit that they moved into the property in January 2024 and the bond was not changed to their name until April 2024. They further say that the bond was not updated to reflect the new rent until August 2024.
At the hearing, the landlord said that he had lodged the bond, and that it was transferred from one tenant to [Tenant 1] rather than requesting a bond refund and then making a new bond lodgement.
The RTA requires that landlords forward the amount of bond received to the chief executive, or in other words that they lodge the bond within a set period of time. See section 19 of the RTA.
The RTA also provides for passing bond from one person to another and updating the required bond amount on a rental increase. See section 21A of the RTA.
I have not seen any evidence that suggests any specific clauses of the RTA were breached, and although the transfer and update may not have been immediate, it did occur.
The claim for a failure to lodge bond is dismissed. Unenforceable clause
[Tenant 1] submitted that the tenancy agreement has an unenforceable clause requiring that carpets be professionally shampooed and paid for by the tenants when they are vacating the property.
[Tenant 1] says that this is “quite literally the textbook example of an unenforceable clause.” 1 TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Management Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at [37].
The tenancy agreement cannot require tenants to do more than the RTA requires them to do. The RTA requires that tenants leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.
Therefore, a clause requiring professional cleaning of the carpet is on the face of it, likely to be unenforceable, although I note that it may depend on whether any damage has been caused by the tenant(s) to the carpet during the tenancy and the circumstances in which that damage occurred.
The landlord hasn’t sought to enforce the clause here. [Tenant 1] is moving out of the property, and I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that professional cleaning of the carpet has been requested or required.
There is no unlawful act, and the claim for an unenforceable clause in the tenancy agreement is dismissed. Unlawful termination
Section 60AA of the RTA states that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give notice or to make the application.
[Tenant 1] submits that the landlord has not acted lawfully through the process of evicting them from the tenancy address.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord text messaged [Tenant 1] on 1 August 2024 asking to discuss recent developments between them and another tenant. A further text message the following day, asks how they are getting on with moving out from the tenancy address and advises that they received a call from another property manager asking for a reference for them.
Further discussions ensue between [Tenant 1] and the landlord around ensuring the property is empty when [Tenant 1] collects her belongings and there is some confusion as to why an alternative property reference has been sought.
The landlord responds that in view of the circumstances and the matter against [Tenant 1] with the police with one of the tenants “close to being assaulted”, all other co-tenants now feel unable to exercise their required enjoyment and safety at the property and he goes on to ask how [Tenant 1] intends to vacate the property and suggests “asap”.
There are further communications between [Tenant 1] and the landlord where the landlord asks [Tenant 1] again when they are leaving the property, and rental arrears are raised at this time together with other issues which are not required to be detailed further in this order.
[Tenant 1] submits that the landlord was attempting to evict them, on behalf of the other tenants, and that he did so without hearing any opposing evidence on what had happened. [Tenant 1] also submits that they weren’t staying at the property when the landlord asked if he could take their new belongings to the rubbish tip and that the landlord and tenants have been using the Tribunal to litigate an unresolved police matter. The landlord submits that the eviction was not a decision taken lightly and that he was asked for help and given the police report confirming that a formal complaint had been lodged.
The landlord could have sought to terminate the tenancy by application to the Tribunal pursuant to s55(1)(c)(iv). The landlord has instead attempted to resolve the issue informally, through agreement between himself and [Tenant 1].
However, I do not believe that this has reached the standard required in section 60AA of the RTA. Based on the facts, it is quite possible that the landlord could have applied to terminate the tenancy under this Act.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has not acted unlawfully to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
In any event, the tenants have resolved for [Tenant 1] to move out of the property in the Disputes Tribunal, so termination has eventuated as a result of a tenant dispute rather than as the result of the landlord / tenant dispute for which this Tribunal has jurisdiction. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[Tenant 1] has claimed exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment. This claim appears to arise out of allegations that after the landlord tried to get [Tenant 1] to agree to move out the property, the landlord entered [Tenant 1]’s bedroom, and went through their belongings.
[Tenant 1] has provided photographs which they say shows the landlord in their bedroom on 2 August 2024 at 11:43am.
At the hearing, the landlord submitted that he had gone to [Tenant 1]’s room to determine if they were still living at the tenancy address as other tenants had reported to him that they were no longer residing there.
The landlord should 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. See section 38(2) of the RTA.
Section 38(3A) further states that without limiting the generality of subsection (3) above, the landlord commits an unlawful act under that subsection if the landlord enters the premises purportedly under section 48(2B) without any reasonable cause to believe that the tenant has abandoned the premises.
Schedule 1A of the RTA allows for exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 for interference to the privacy of the tenant.
Based on the evidence I received, the landlord did have reasonable cause to believe [Tenant 1] may have abandoned the property, particularly as he believed he had given a reference for another property and there are text messages showing he was trying to get [Tenant 1] to confirm that she had left the property.
That being said, the landlord should have given [Tenant 1] sufficient notice of an inspection in accordance with section 48 of the RTA, and in addition the photographs show that he appears to be looking through belongings rather than simply inspecting for the purpose of ascertaining abandonment.
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.
As above, like all citizens, as a landlord he is deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to comply with the RTA is seen as intentional. 2 As a result, I consider it appropriate to award a modest level of exemplary damages of $300.00 for interference with the privacy of [Tenant 1]. Summary
The landlord must pay a single amount of $200.00 split between all named tenants in exemplary damages for breaches relating to the tenancy agreement.
The landlord must pay [Tenant 1] $300.00 in exemplary damage for interference with the privacy of a tenant.
All other claims are dismissed. Suppression
Both parties have requested name suppression in their applications. In my view, any benefit from the decision can be gained without names and identifying details and given both parties have had some success, there has been a withdrawal of the landlord’s claim, and some named tenants were not involved in the disputes at all, I have suppressed all parties’ names. R Harvey-Lane 18 November 2024 2 TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Management Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at [37].

Tenancy Tribunal case 4992768 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4992768 — 14-day notice

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