What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5000809?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5000809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000809?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10973300-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5000809?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5000809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000809?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10973300-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Earl Place, Te Anau, Te Anau 9600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5000809 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
Jenny Labruyere and John Labruyere must pay Yvette Joy O’Shaughnessy $27.00 immediately in reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenancy began in September 2020 and the parties were known to each other before this.
The parties acknowledged that they both benefitted from the arrangement in a variety of ways.
As the tenant was known to them, the landlords managed the property themselves saving management fees. They also had the benefit of a known and reliable tenant who they acknowledged has looked after the property well during the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged that she had wanted to move from her existing accommodation due to the layout of that property and that this property suited her family well at the time the tenancy began.
Whether the initial rent was below market was disputed but it is clear that the rent was increased minimally during the tenancy (from $300 to $380 over the four-year period).
Everything went well for a number of years but recently there have been some issues between the parties.

Should exemplary damages be paid by the landlord for non-lodgement of the bond?

Yvette Joy O'Shaughnessy claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received under section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord failed to pay the bond within the required timeframe.
When the tenant brought this to the landlords’ attention, the landlords reviewed their records and found that the bond form, although partially completed, had not been lodged at the beginning of the tenancy four years earlier.
The bond funds were still sitting in the rental account into which the tenant had paid them at the beginning of the tenancy.
I find the landlords have 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 under section 109(3) of the Act.
The landlords explained that Mrs Labruyere’s mother had passed away at around the time the tenancy began and there were issues with the settling of her estate. The tenant acknowledged this.
They were also packing up their whole house for renovations. There were a number of matters occupying the landlords’ minds at this time and the bond lodgement form had got caught up with other papers and had inadvertently been overlooked.
As soon as the tenant advised the landlords that the bond had not been paid to the Bond Centre as required, the landlords located the incomplete Bond Lodgement form and took it to the tenant to sign.
Due to advice the tenant had received from the Tenancy Services, she refused to sign the form, but the landlords lodged it without the tenant’s signature and paid the funds to the Bond Centre the same day.
The landlords had also contacted Tenancy Services who had advised them to correct the error as soon as possible by paying the Bond in immediately as above.
The tenant was also concerned that the landlords had been benefitting from the use of her bond money for the entire four years of the tenancy. The landlord said that the funds were in a non-interest-bearing working account and no interest had been received.
The non-lodgement was an innocent oversight and when it was brought to their attention the landlords corrected it immediately.
They did not benefit from the unlawful act and there was no detriment to the tenant who would not have had use of the funds if they had been lodged with the Bond Centre as required.
There is a public interest in ensuring landlords pay tenant’s bonds to the Bond Centre as required and in punishing them when they intentionally ignore the requirements.
However, where there is no intention to commit an unlawful act, exemplary damages cannot be awarded.
I find that there was no intention on the part of the landlords to commit an unlawful act in not lodging the bond on time.
It was an innocent oversight and undoubtedly the landlords will take more care in future.
No exemplary damages can or should flow from this breach. Other matters
The tenant also claimed that the landlord had illegally sought to increase the rent twice within a 12-month period.
The tenancy agreement stated that rent reviews could be conducted every six months.
The landlord gave evidence that this was due to the fact that the rent was below market at the time the tenancy began as they had wanted to help the tenant out due to a pre-existing friendship.
The tenant denied that the rent had been below market at the time as rentals had been in good supply due to covid impacts in the area.
Regardless of the reasons behind the inclusion of the clause, the landlords acknowledged that such a clause is contrary to the Act and should not have been included in the Tenancy Agreement.
They had already withdrawn the rent increase notice prior to the hearing so no loss was suffered as a consequence and no order need be made in relation to this matter.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord had come to her property, with no notice, requesting that she sign the bond lodgement form as mentioned above.
The tenant thought this was a breach of her peace and felt that it was intimidating.
Whilst there was a dispute as to what actually occurred at this time, the parties agree that Mr Labruyere had gone to the tenancy address hoping the tenant would sign the bond lodgement form so that the landlords could (belatedly) lodge the bond. The tenant refused and the form was sent to the Bond Centre without the tenant’s signature.
The Tribunal reminded the parties that a landlord can go to a tenant’s address without notice (provided that they do not do this so often as to breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment) and the tenant may either choose to engage with the landlord or ask that they return on another occasion (if necessary) with appropriate notice to be given.
Coming to the door in itself is not a breach of the Act in these circumstances and no order can or should be made in relation to this matter.
Although Yvette Joy O'Shaughnessy has not succeeded with the claim in that no exemplary damages have been awarded, I have reimbursed the filing fee to acknowledge that an unlawful act has been committed by the landlord in relation to the non-lodgement of the bond within the required timeframe.

Order

The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
Jenny Labruyere and John Labruyere must pay Yvette Joy O’Shaughnessy $27.00 immediately in reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenancy began in September 2020 and the parties were known to each other before this.
The parties acknowledged that they both benefitted from the arrangement in a variety of ways.
As the tenant was known to them, the landlords managed the property themselves saving management fees. They also had the benefit of a known and reliable tenant who they acknowledged has looked after the property well during the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged that she had wanted to move from her existing accommodation due to the layout of that property and that this property suited her family well at the time the tenancy began.
Whether the initial rent was below market was disputed but it is clear that the rent was increased minimally during the tenancy (from $300 to $380 over the four-year period).
Everything went well for a number of years but recently there have been some issues between the parties.

Should exemplary damages be paid by the landlord for non-lodgement of the bond?

Yvette Joy O'Shaughnessy claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received under section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord failed to pay the bond within the required timeframe.
When the tenant brought this to the landlords’ attention, the landlords reviewed their records and found that the bond form, although partially completed, had not been lodged at the beginning of the tenancy four years earlier.
The bond funds were still sitting in the rental account into which the tenant had paid them at the beginning of the tenancy.
I find the landlords have 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 under section 109(3) of the Act.
The landlords explained that Mrs Labruyere’s mother had passed away at around the time the tenancy began and there were issues with the settling of her estate. The tenant acknowledged this.
They were also packing up their whole house for renovations. There were a number of matters occupying the landlords’ minds at this time and the bond lodgement form had got caught up with other papers and had inadvertently been overlooked.
As soon as the tenant advised the landlords that the bond had not been paid to the Bond Centre as required, the landlords located the incomplete Bond Lodgement form and took it to the tenant to sign.
Due to advice the tenant had received from the Tenancy Services, she refused to sign the form, but the landlords lodged it without the tenant’s signature and paid the funds to the Bond Centre the same day.
The landlords had also contacted Tenancy Services who had advised them to correct the error as soon as possible by paying the Bond in immediately as above.
The tenant was also concerned that the landlords had been benefitting from the use of her bond money for the entire four years of the tenancy. The landlord said that the funds were in a non-interest-bearing working account and no interest had been received.
The non-lodgement was an innocent oversight and when it was brought to their attention the landlords corrected it immediately.
They did not benefit from the unlawful act and there was no detriment to the tenant who would not have had use of the funds if they had been lodged with the Bond Centre as required.
There is a public interest in ensuring landlords pay tenant’s bonds to the Bond Centre as required and in punishing them when they intentionally ignore the requirements.
However, where there is no intention to commit an unlawful act, exemplary damages cannot be awarded.
I find that there was no intention on the part of the landlords to commit an unlawful act in not lodging the bond on time.
It was an innocent oversight and undoubtedly the landlords will take more care in future.
No exemplary damages can or should flow from this breach. Other matters
The tenant also claimed that the landlord had illegally sought to increase the rent twice within a 12-month period.
The tenancy agreement stated that rent reviews could be conducted every six months.
The landlord gave evidence that this was due to the fact that the rent was below market at the time the tenancy began as they had wanted to help the tenant out due to a pre-existing friendship.
The tenant denied that the rent had been below market at the time as rentals had been in good supply due to covid impacts in the area.
Regardless of the reasons behind the inclusion of the clause, the landlords acknowledged that such a clause is contrary to the Act and should not have been included in the Tenancy Agreement.
They had already withdrawn the rent increase notice prior to the hearing so no loss was suffered as a consequence and no order need be made in relation to this matter.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord had come to her property, with no notice, requesting that she sign the bond lodgement form as mentioned above.
The tenant thought this was a breach of her peace and felt that it was intimidating.
Whilst there was a dispute as to what actually occurred at this time, the parties agree that Mr Labruyere had gone to the tenancy address hoping the tenant would sign the bond lodgement form so that the landlords could (belatedly) lodge the bond. The tenant refused and the form was sent to the Bond Centre without the tenant’s signature.
The Tribunal reminded the parties that a landlord can go to a tenant’s address without notice (provided that they do not do this so often as to breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment) and the tenant may either choose to engage with the landlord or ask that they return on another occasion (if necessary) with appropriate notice to be given.
Coming to the door in itself is not a breach of the Act in these circumstances and no order can or should be made in relation to this matter.
Although Yvette Joy O'Shaughnessy has not succeeded with the claim in that no exemplary damages have been awarded, I have reimbursed the filing fee to acknowledge that an unlawful act has been committed by the landlord in relation to the non-lodgement of the bond within the required timeframe.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000809 — Exemplary damages at 10 Earl Place, Te Anau, Te Anau 9600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000809 — Exemplary damages at 10 Earl Place, Te Anau, Te Anau 9600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be paid by the landlord for non-lodgement of the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be paid by the landlord for non-lodgement of the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions