How much money was awarded in case 5021602?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of right to qui…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Gas And Electricity Charges: $270.90 awarded to landlord; Lighting: $25.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $139.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021602?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021602?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11013813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5021602?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of right to qui…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Gas And Electricity Charges: $270.90 awarded to landlord; Lighting: $25.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $139.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021602?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021602?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11013813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

59B Napier Terrace, Hospital Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021602 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021602 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021602 — net $1,040.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00		Carpet Cleaning
Lock repair	$139.00		Lock repair
Blind repairs	$325.00		Blind repairs
Lighting	$25.80		Lighting
Gas and electricity charges	$270.90		Gas and electricity charges
paint repairs	$1,380.00		paint repairs
Compensation: Breach of right to quiet enjoyment		$600.00	Breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Fail to lodge bond		$400.00	Fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Requiring more than 2 weeks		$300.00	Requiring more than 2 weeks
Total award	$2,340.70	$1,300.00
Net award	$1,040.70
Bond	$4,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,040.70

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,040.70 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,040.70 [The tenant/s]: $3,439.30

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant company was represented by [The tenant’s representative/s], who appeared by teleconference. [The tenant’s representative/s] is not a director of the tenant company but it is accepted that she was acting as agent for the company when the tenancy agreement was entered into and throughout the tenancy. I accept that she has the company’s authority to represent it in relation to this claim

The tenant brought an application seeking compensation and/ or exemplary damages for: a. the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; b. the landlords requiring payment of more than four weeks rent in advance; c. breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The landlords then applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Agreement

The tenant entered into the agreement to provide accommodation for its employees (“the occupants”).

The agreement was for a term from 14 March 2024 to 14 March 2025. It provides for rent of $1,000.00 per week to be paid, of which both parties confirm, $150.00 was for the costs of a cleaner arranged by the landlords, until that arrangement was cancelled.

The agreement does not name the permitted occupants but says that, “Maximum occupants 3 plus 1 partner”

The parties reached an agreement that the tenancy would instead end on 23 September 2024.

Throughout the tenancy, the landlords continued to occupy a 1 bedroom flat beneath the premises. Bond

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant paid a bond of $4,480.00 when the tenancy began. The bond invoice issued by the landlord states, “To cover 4 weeks bond payment to be lodged with tenancy services within one month and a receipt will be forwarded directly to you.”

It is not disputed that the bond was not received by the Bond Centre until 4 October 2024, after the tenancy had ended. The landlords have therefore committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.

In considering whether an unlawful act has been committed intentionally, it is the act itself that must be considered, not whether the landlords intended to act unlawfully.

The landlords were aware of their obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, that assurance is recorded in the bond invoice. The landlords say that they simply overlooked lodging the bond, but did so on becoming aware of their oversight.

[The tenant’s representative/s] says that after making inquiries of Tenancy Services in June 2024 she was advised that the bond had not been lodged with the Bond Centre and that the landlords were not entitled to charge the tenant more than two weeks’ rent in advance.

The evidence shows that after receiving that advice, [The tenant’s representative/s] txt the landlords to say that thereafter the rent would only be paid weekly in advance. [The tenant’s representative/s] says that during a phone conversation around the same time, she notified the landlords that the bond had not been lodged. The landlords say they have no recollection of any such phone call having taken place.

While it would seem surprising for [The tenant’s representative/s] not have passed on the advice she received about the rent in advance but not mention the bond, the evidence does not prove that the landlords had been put on notice by the tenant in June that they had failed to lodge the bond.

The bond has now been lodged and no direct harm has been caused to the tenant by the landlords’ failure to lodge it when they should have. The bond does not appear to have been at risk during the tenancy, having been retained in the landlords’ account. The worry of the tenancy having ended without the bond being held at the Bond Centre, is not something the tenant should have been troubled with.

There is a clear public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with such fundamental obligations. I find it just to make a modest award of exemplary damages to recognise those considerations. Rent in Advance

A landlord must not require a tenant to pay more than two weeks’ rent in advance. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In the tenancy details section of the agreement, the boxes are ticked indicating that the rent is to be paid weekly in advance. In the special conditions however there is a provision saying, “Rent to be paid 4 weekly in advance”.

The landlord issued the tenant with invoices requiring that four weeks’ rent in advance be paid.

As noted, in June 2024 the tenant became aware that requirement was unlawful and the tenant notified the landlords that the rent would only be paid weekly in advance.

The landlords continued to issue the tenant with invoices requiring that rent be paid four weekly in advance.

The landlords say that they continued to issue those invoices really as receipts for the tenant’s purposes, rather than as demands for payment.

While that may have been the landlords’ intention, there is no evidence showing that they told the tenant they didn’t expect those invoices to be paid, although the tenant accepts that no steps were taken by the landlords to enforce payment.

By requiring the tenant to pay rent four weekly in advance, until June at least, the landlords have committed an unlawful act.

The landlords say that they were simply unaware that it was unlawful to require payment of four weeks’ rent in advance.

Again, the tenant suffered no quantifiable loss from having initially paid the rent four weekly in advance. Again too, there is a public interest in landlords being aware of and complying with such core obligations.

I find it just to make a modest award of exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach Parking

The tenant says that it was a term of their agreement that the occupants would be able to use the carport space for parking as well as a space on the driveway.

The landlords confirm that was the intention and that they had indicated they would park their own cars on the roadway.

During the tenancy circumstances changed in that: a. the landlords suffered health issues making it more difficult for them to walk from the road to their flat; b. concerns were raised with the landlords by the neighbours at the top of the driveway, that the occupants’ vehicles when they drove to work very early in the morning, made a lot of noise and disturbance accelerating up the driveway to the road.

The landlords approached the tenant to ask if it might be possible for the occupants not to use the driveway for parking and an agreement was reached about that.

Later, the occupants’ circumstances changed in that the amount of work gear they were required to carry with them increased and there was a security risk leaving it in vehicles on the road.

The evidence shows communication about these matters and agreements reached about how the driveway would be used.

While I accept the tenant’s circumstances changed such that it would have preferred its workers to be able to use the carport and driveway for parking again, this is the tenant’s claim, so it is for the tenant to bring evidence to prove a breach of the agreement as modified by the arrangements later agreed by the parties.

I do not find such a breach proved. Breach of Right to quiet enjoyment

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The evidence does not provide a basis for finding any harassment of the tenant or the occupants by the landlords.

The tenant is however entitled to claim compensation if it shows the landlords have interfered with the reasonable peace comfort or privacy of the occupants in their use of the premises.

The tenant claims two circumstances in which the landlord did so: a. by making police enquiries about the occupants; and b. by the landlords’ cleaner having taken photographs off the premises without the occupants’ prior knowledge or consent.

Neighbours reported to the landlords that there had been a number of police visits to the premises. A photograph showing a police officer at the door of the premises was provided to the landlords by the neighbours.

The landlords noted that concern with the tenant.

Sometime after that, the landlords made a visit to the police at which the occupants were discussed.

The tenant says that it was not for the landlords to investigate the occupants or make comments about them, such as that a motel would have been a better option and that if the landlord had any concerns about the occupants’ conduct, the landlords should have raised them with the tenant. The tenant agrees that it was appropriate for the neighbour’s information to be passed on to the tenant but not for the landlords to approach the police directly.

The landlords say they overheard an argument between the occupants with one of them making comments about having covered for the other with the police in relation to accessing prohibited Internet sites. The landlords’ evidence is that because the occupants used the landlords’ IP address they were concerned at being held responsible for any improper use of it so decided to approach the police to explain the position.

It is clear that while visiting with the police there was some discussion about the identity and conduct of the occupants, which does seem intrusive.

I do not find it proved however that those events constitute a breach of the occupants’ reasonable peace and privacy in their use of the premises. If I accept the landlords’ evidence, they had a legitimate concern at being responsible for an unlawful use of their IP address which they were entitled to address with the police. What the police chose to share with them about the occupants, while perhaps none of the landlords’ business in terms of the tenancy agreement, is not really the landlords’ responsibility. Photographs taken by the cleaner

The landlords’ evidence is that their cleaner contacted them noting some issues about the condition of the premises. The cleaner offered to take photographs, which she did, and sent them through to the landlords which the landlords then passed on to the tenant.

It is clear that the occupants felt that their privacy was breached as they then refused to allow the cleaner to enter their private spaces.

I find this to be a clear breach of the occupants’ right to reasonable peace comfort and privacy. They seem, justifiably, to have felt that the cleaner was “spying” on them for the landlord while they were not there.

The landlords say that the photographs were only of damage to the premises not of any of the occupant’s personal property. Nevertheless, if the landlords intended to conduct an inspection of the premises, their obligation was to give appropriate notice to the tenants of their intention to do so.

There is no evidence of similar conduct having occurred on other occasions.

I find that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for that breach of the occupants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

It is for the landlords to bring evidence to prove that damage was caused during the tenancy and is more that fair wear and tear, If proved, it is then for the tenant to bring evidence to show the damage was not caused in circumstances the tenant is responsible for.

The tenant does not dispute responsibility to compensate the landlords as claimed for: a. carpet cleaning b. lighting c. electricity and gas.

Initially the tenant queried the claims for the curtain/blind repairs, not being sure what the claim was for. Having heard the landlords’ explanation and modification of the sum claimed, that is no longer disputed.

The tenant disputes the part of the locksmith’s invoice that relates to repair of the ranch slider door, which [The tenant’s representative/s] says was not working properly at the start of the tenancy. The landlords say that they were not aware of any issues with the door.

A tenant has an obligation to notify the landlord of any need for repair of the premises. [The tenant’s representative/s] acknowledges that she did not raise this issue with the landlord. That being so I find it more likely than not that the damage to the lock needing repair, occurred during the tenancy and the landlord should be compensated for the repair cost as proved by the invoice provided.

The tenant also disputed the extent of the compensation claimed by the landlord for repair of damage to walls and ceilings.

That damage is proved by photographs provided by the landlord. I am satisfied that it occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

I understand [The tenant’s representative/s]’s point of view that the cost of the repair seems high in relation to the extent of the damage shown. The landlords are however entitled to have the damage properly repaired, which in the case of repainting work may require painting of a whole wall surface to avoid the presence of an obvious patch.

The landlords’ evidence confirms the extend of the repair work required and the cost incurred by the landlords to have that repair work done is proved by the invoice provided.

As each party had had claims upheld I make no Order regarding the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021602 — net $1,040.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00		Carpet Cleaning
Lock repair	$139.00		Lock repair
Blind repairs	$325.00		Blind repairs
Lighting	$25.80		Lighting
Gas and electricity charges	$270.90		Gas and electricity charges
paint repairs	$1,380.00		paint repairs
Compensation: Breach of right to quiet enjoyment		$600.00	Breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Fail to lodge bond		$400.00	Fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Requiring more than 2 weeks		$300.00	Requiring more than 2 weeks
Total award	$2,340.70	$1,300.00
Net award	$1,040.70
Bond	$4,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,040.70