What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011628 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancies in this case are residential tenancies subject to the Residential

How much money was awarded in case 5011628?

Bonds: $1,240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Power And Internet: $192.92 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011628?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11045657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011628 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancies in this case are residential tenancies subject to the Residential

How much money was awarded in case 5011628?

Bonds: $1,240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Power And Internet: $192.92 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011628?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11045657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

122 Kittyhawk Avenue, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5011628 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011628 — net $3,047.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$200.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Power and internet	$192.92		Power and internet
Exemplary damages: Unlawful termination		$1,500.00	Unlawful termination
Exemplary damages: Bond		$200.00	Bond
Exemplary damages: Locks		$500.00	Locks
Bonds		$1,240.00	Bonds
Total award	$392.92	$3,440.00
Net award		$3,047.08
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,047.08

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011628 — net $3,047.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$200.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Power and internet	$192.92		Power and internet
Exemplary damages: Unlawful termination		$1,500.00	Unlawful termination
Exemplary damages: Bond		$200.00	Bond
Exemplary damages: Locks		$500.00	Locks
Bonds		$1,240.00	Bonds
Total award	$392.92	$3,440.00
Net award		$3,047.08
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,047.08

Order

The tenancies in this case are residential tenancies subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine these applications.
Weijian He must pay [the tenants] $3,047.08 (the debt), calculated as shown in the table below.
Weijian He must pay the debt immediately as follows. a. $1,356.04 to [the second tenant] b. $1,691.04 to [the first tenant]
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s request for suppression is refused.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. The tenants attended in person. The landlord attended by telephone.
The tenants have applied for repayment of their bonds, compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancies. Background
Unusually, the tenants’ application is by two tenants under separate tenancy agreements. They are a couple and occupied rooms in the same premises under tenancy agreements granted by the same landlord. They should have filed separate applications but for convenience, I will deal with them under the one application.
The premises consist of a four bedroomed house owned by the landlord. He has owned it since 2016 and he lived in it himself until 2022 when he left the country. Since then, he has rented out the premises, on a room-by-room basis, until recently.
One tenancy (the first tenancy) began in April 2023 and the other (the second tenancy) in June 2024. Both ended on 25 August 2024, following a termination notice from the landlord.
The tenancy agreements are similar. They are headed “House Sharing Agreement”, and the landlord is described as the “Head Tenant” and the tenants as the “flatmate”. They were for fixed terms and provided for termination by either party on 28 days notice after the fixed term ended.
The first tenant’s fixed term ended on 29 February 2024 and the second tenant’s fixed term was to end on 20 December 2024.
The landlord gave both tenants a termination notice on 3 August expiring on 2 September.
The tenants vacated the premises on 25 August. Jurisdiction
The landlord did not seriously argue at the hearing that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction but it was put in issue so I will deal with it.
The tenants were granted exclusive use of a bedroom each and shared use of the common arears. Up to five tenants occupied the premises at any one time under similar agreements.
The tenants paid the landlord rent and bond. All the required elements of a residential tenancy agreement were therefore present. The only possible exclusion of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) is under s5(1)(n) of the Act, namely the premises continued to be used by the landlord principally as his place of residence.
The landlord did not occupy the premises during the time that the tenants occupied it. He said that he had converted a living area to a bedroom or study, and he stored some of his personal possessions in it. That is not occupation, and it is not use within the meaning of the s5(1)(n). It follows that he did not continue to use them. The tenants and the other tenants occupying the premises had exclusive occupation of them. They were not used principally as the landlord’s residence.
The Act therefore applies to these tenancies and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine these applications.
I note that s11 of the Act provides that tenants cannot contract out of the Act without the Tribunal’s approval. There is no basis on which to grant approval in this case and so the Tribunal must ignore the terms of the agreement to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The Tenants’ Claims Termination
Under Section 60AA of the Act a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
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.
There can be no doubt that the landlord’s termination notices were invalid and unlawful. The Act does not allow termination by the landlord on 28 days notice. To make matters worse, the notice served on the second tenant was served during her fixed term and so it was contrary to the landlord’s own agreement.
The tenants were forced to find somewhere to move to at short notice which was stressful for them. They claimed compensation related to the higher rent that they are now paying but that rent includes power and internet which the were paying for separately for the premises. I therefore make no award for that.
This case warrants an award of exemplary damages. I have little sympathy for the landlord’s argument that he believed that he was entitled to serve the notices. He was not entitled to serve the notice on the second tenant, even on his own case. His attempt to call himself the head tenant when he is the owner and was not living in the premises is an obvious contradiction. He must have been aware of that and he either knew that the agreements were a sham, or he intentionally failed to inform himself of his legal position. In any case, the landlord’s ignorance of the law, if that is what it was, is no defence.
I find that he served the notices knowing that he was not entitled to do so. An award of $1,500 is appropriate. I have taken into consideration the effect on the tenants and so no additional award of compensation is needed. Local Agent
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord admitted that he did not appoint a local agent as he should have done. He dealt with any issues remotely from China. The tenants accepted that the landlord communicated well with them, and I cannot discern any significant difficulty imposed on the tenants by the lack of a local agent. The landlord did not carry out inspections at key times, or at all, and that has counted against him in relation to his claims against the tenants. But I see no justification for exemplary damages or compensation for this breach. Unlawful Entry/Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
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.
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".
The tenants claim that people came to the premises on behalf of the landlord without proper notice and without their consent. It seems that either the tenants or other tenants allowed them to enter and there was no complaint about it at the time.
It seems that there were legitimate reasons for the people to be there such as for garden work, viewings and maintenance. There was no pattern of behaviour in this case that could amount to harassment. I see no good reason to award exemplary damages or compensation in the circumstances. Locks
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The bedroom doors were not lockable from the outside. That meant that when the tenants left the premises, they could not secure their bedrooms and their belongings and privacy were at risk.
I find that this was a significant breach. Fortunately, the tenants did not lose any of their belongings. But where a tenant is given exclusive use of a bedroom and strangers are sharing occupation of the premises, it is important, in my view, that they are given the means to secure their private space. Ensuring that there are sufficient locks to make the premises secure, includes locks on the bedroom doors in this situation.
Regardless of the landlord’s knowledge of the law, whatever that was, the landlord should have known that tenants should have had locks on their bedroom doors. An award of exemplary damages is required and $500 is appropriate. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord has failed to lodge the bonds. I note that the landlord has been a party to proceedings in this Tribunal before in relation to the premises and he has had the opportunity to obtain advice about his situation. But he has still not lodged the bond. That has plainly put the tenants at a disadvantage and left them feeling insecure.
An award of exemplary damages is required and $200 is appropriate. Cleaning costs
I dismiss the first tenant’s claim for repayment of cleaning costs paid to the landlord during the tenancy. The tenants at the time agreed to pay for cleaning the premises and I see no good reason to look behind that. The Landlord’s Claims
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
The tenants’ accepted that they left a few small bags of rubbish at the premises and that one of their rooms was not left reasonably clean. They tried to explain that, but I find that it should have been left clean at the time that they vacated.
I don’t accept that landlord’s claim that the tenants left a substantial number of large bags of rubbish. He cannot prove that because there were other tenants, and it could have been their rubbish. I assess the compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal at $150.
The tenants’ accepted the claim for utilities charges in total sum of $192.92.
I dismiss the landlord’s other claims for the following reasons.
The claimed damage to the chair is fair wear and tear. There was no evidence that the tenants carelessly or intentionally damaged the chair. There was no evidence to hold them responsible for any other damage to the premises. There was no evidence as to the condition of the premises when the tenancies began.
There is no basis to award the cost of a Healthy Homes inspection against the tenants. The landlord referred to slight mould in the one of the tenant’s rooms. That is a cleaning issue.
The tenants were not responsible for maintaining the outside areas. The landlord paid for that during the tenancy. He cannot now recover the cost of garden work from the tenants.
The tenants are not responsible for the cleanliness or lack of it of the common areas. The landlord should have made provision for cleaning the common areas. The obvious thing to do was to include the cost of cleaning in the rent. It would be unfair to impose a proportion of cleaning costs on each tenant when they are not responsible individually for cleaning all the common areas and there is no way of knowing who has done their “share” of the cleaning and who hasn’t. I note that the only provision in the agreement about cleaning is that the tenants must clean their own rooms. Filing Fees
I make no award for filing fees. Result
The result is that the landlord has a net liability to the tenants in the sum of $3,047.08. He must also repay them their bonds. I have divided the award and bonds between the tenants and ordered the landlord to pay them individually. The cleaning, rubbish and utilities costs have been split equally between them. The awards of exemplary damages for wrongful termination and failure to lodge the bonds have been split equally and for locks has been split between them based on the length of their tenancies. Suppression
The tenants have had substantial success and so I grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord has had minimal success and so I refuse his request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011628 — Exemplary damages at 122 Kittyhawk Avenue, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011628 — Exemplary damages at 122 Kittyhawk Avenue, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

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