What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5016188 about?

The tribunal order states: 3. All other applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5016188?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5016188?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5016188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10965502-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5016188 about?

The tribunal order states: 3. All other applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5016188?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5016188?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5016188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10965502-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5016188 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5016188 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary Damages	$500.00	Exemplary Damages
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 October 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears, water rates arrears, exemplary damages for abandonment, using the premises for an unlawful purpose, assigning or subletting without landlord approval and refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee
At the commencement of the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the rent was no longer in arrears and that the water rates arrears had been paid. Those applications are dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. See section 61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord. The landlord said that they became aware of this one month ago, but could not be more specific as to the date.
The landlord said that he became aware that the tenants had not been living at the premises for some months. The flatmates of the tenants had remained.
The rent was in arrears on the date that the application was filed with the Tribunal. The amount owing was $582.85. Rent is no longer in arrears.
The tenants’ evidence was that they provided the landlord with 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on 25 September 2024. The evidence provided by the parties shows that the landlord was aware of this. The tenants said that they had been trying to arrange a changeover of the tenancy to their existing flatmates.
Based on the evidence provided, I do not consider it more likely than not that the tenants were leaving the premises as an abandonment, but that the process for ending the tenancy by way of a tenant termination became confused. In saying that, I do not consider that any blame for the confusion can be assigned to the landlord.
The application for termination for abandonment and for exemplary damages for abandonment is dismissed. Assignment - Subletting Harcourts Cooper And Co Ltd As Agent For Messrs Pamich claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord agreed that flatmates had been allowed during the course of the tenancy. Once the tenants decided to give notice, they tried to arrange for one of the flatmates to take over the tenancy. They advised the landlord of this. Unfortunately, when the landlord made contact with the intended new tenant, the new tenant said that they didn’t want to take over the tenancy. The situation can best be described as “confused,” but I do not think that there was any intention by the tenants to assign or sublet without first obtaining landlord consent. The application is dismissed. Unlawful Purpose Harcourts Cooper And Co Ltd As Agent For Messrs Pamich claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by possessing cannabis, which is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The tenant said she knew nothing of the cannabis.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA. A tenant is responsible for the act or omissions of anyone on the premises with their permission.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find that the tenants 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant is unable to simply turn a blind eye to the activities of their flatmates. I am satisfied that the tenants’ actions have been intentional. The landlord is entitled to rent out premises and not have them used for unlawful purposes. The effect of the unlawful act has been minimal. In those circumstances, I consider an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale to be appropriate. The tenant is to pay exemplary damages of $500.00.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenants left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. For the reasons given previously in this order, I do not consider that the tenancy ended as a result of an abandonment. The tenancy will end as a result of the tenants’ 28 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 23 October 2024. It will only be after that date that the landlord may apply for disposal of any remaining tenant goods.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order regarding the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.
I have made no order with regards to the bond. That issue can be dealt with by the parties at the end of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5016188 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary Damages	$500.00	Exemplary Damages
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 October 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears, water rates arrears, exemplary damages for abandonment, using the premises for an unlawful purpose, assigning or subletting without landlord approval and refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee
At the commencement of the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the rent was no longer in arrears and that the water rates arrears had been paid. Those applications are dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. See section 61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord. The landlord said that they became aware of this one month ago, but could not be more specific as to the date.
The landlord said that he became aware that the tenants had not been living at the premises for some months. The flatmates of the tenants had remained.
The rent was in arrears on the date that the application was filed with the Tribunal. The amount owing was $582.85. Rent is no longer in arrears.
The tenants’ evidence was that they provided the landlord with 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on 25 September 2024. The evidence provided by the parties shows that the landlord was aware of this. The tenants said that they had been trying to arrange a changeover of the tenancy to their existing flatmates.
Based on the evidence provided, I do not consider it more likely than not that the tenants were leaving the premises as an abandonment, but that the process for ending the tenancy by way of a tenant termination became confused. In saying that, I do not consider that any blame for the confusion can be assigned to the landlord.
The application for termination for abandonment and for exemplary damages for abandonment is dismissed. Assignment - Subletting Harcourts Cooper And Co Ltd As Agent For Messrs Pamich claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord agreed that flatmates had been allowed during the course of the tenancy. Once the tenants decided to give notice, they tried to arrange for one of the flatmates to take over the tenancy. They advised the landlord of this. Unfortunately, when the landlord made contact with the intended new tenant, the new tenant said that they didn’t want to take over the tenancy. The situation can best be described as “confused,” but I do not think that there was any intention by the tenants to assign or sublet without first obtaining landlord consent. The application is dismissed. Unlawful Purpose Harcourts Cooper And Co Ltd As Agent For Messrs Pamich claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by possessing cannabis, which is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The tenant said she knew nothing of the cannabis.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA. A tenant is responsible for the act or omissions of anyone on the premises with their permission.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find that the tenants 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant is unable to simply turn a blind eye to the activities of their flatmates. I am satisfied that the tenants’ actions have been intentional. The landlord is entitled to rent out premises and not have them used for unlawful purposes. The effect of the unlawful act has been minimal. In those circumstances, I consider an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale to be appropriate. The tenant is to pay exemplary damages of $500.00.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenants left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. For the reasons given previously in this order, I do not consider that the tenancy ended as a result of an abandonment. The tenancy will end as a result of the tenants’ 28 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 23 October 2024. It will only be after that date that the landlord may apply for disposal of any remaining tenant goods.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order regarding the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.
I have made no order with regards to the bond. That issue can be dealt with by the parties at the end of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5016188 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5016188 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions