Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5043149 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 425, 43 Edwin Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024
Decided 17 Mar 2025 · Published 17 Mar 2025 · Application 5043149
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $527.00 Youngsin Kim: $1,793.00
- Youngsin Kim must pay Sam Zheng from the bond for exemplary damages for failing to allow the landlord legitimate entry to the premises and changing the locks without consent, as calculated, and set out below:
- Sam Zheng has applied for suppression of his name and identifying details and I grant suppression.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord is seeking the refund of the bond, exemplary damages for failure of the tenant to allow him access to the property for viewings, changing the locks without consent, compensation for loss of washing machine warranty and reimbursement of filing fee.
- The tenant seeks the refund of her bond. Refund of the bond will depend on the outcome of the landlords’ claims. Both will be determined together. Refusal of entry to property
- [The landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
- A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- This was a 6 month fixed term tenancy commencing on 16 April 2024 and terminating on 15 October 2024.
- The relationship between the landlord and tenant had become problematic towards the end of the tenancy. The tenant left the property on 8 October 2024.
- The landlord sought to have viewings of the property before the end of the tenancy. Despite providing the correct notice, the tenant continually refused entry. The tenant was unwell for some time and claimed that she was unable to grant short viewings of the property. It is likely that the animosity between the parties also was a factor in the constant refusal to allow legitimate access to the property.
- The tenant refused to allow the landlord entry to the property despite being given the appropriate notice. No allowance was made to accommodate the landlords’ requests. I find the tenant has 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.
- I appreciate that the relationship had soured between the parties, and that the tenant left early allowing the landlord access without her consent in the last week of the tenancy. Regardless the landlord should be permitted to enter the property when required to carry out his obligations as a landlord.
- The tenant could have allowed some entry into the property. I find she intentionally hindered the landlord’s access to the property.
- I am awarding the landlord $250.00 in exemplary damages for the tenant’s breach of her obligation to allow the landlord entry to the property despite being given the appropriate notice. Landlord claims tenant has altered the locks without consent:
- The landlord claims the tenant has altered the locks without consent.
- A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant changed the locks in the property without the landlord’s consent. Furthermore, the tenant refused to give the landlord a key to the property after she had changed the locks. I find they 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 told the landlord that there had been a break in at the property. The landlord was not provided with confirmation of any break in. The tenant said she was concerned if she gave the landlord a key that he would enter the property and she felt unsafe.
- The tenant said the landlord had told her that she could change the locks but at her own expense. The landlord said there was no proof of a break in and so there was no necessity on him to change the locks.
- Despite changing the locks, the tenant did not tell the landlord about it. Once the landlord was aware of the change of locks he asked for a key, which was never provided.
- The landlord points out that this is an apartment in a block of 50 other apartments. There is an onsite manager and a Body Corp overseeing the whole building.
- It is a requirement of the Body Corp and the property onsite manager that a landlord has access to their apartments in an emergence.
- A landlord needs to be able to access the property for emergencies, maintenance, and inspections, as well as to ensure the property is secure and to comply with any landlord obligations.
- I find the tenant acted intentionally and changed the locks without consent and refused to provide a key to the landlord.
- I am awarding the landlord the sum of $250.00 in exemplary damages for the tenant’s breach of her obligations under the RTA and the tenancy agreement. Compensation for voiding the washing machine warranty:
- The landlord is claiming that the dismantling of the washing machine to clean it has voided the warranty.
- There is no dispute that the tenant claimed that the washing machine was very dirty and unusable in that condition. The landlord was prepared to offer a sum for the cost of the cleaning. In a previous Tenancy Tribunal hearing dated 2 November 2024 , the landlord was ordered to pay the tenant $100.00 towards the cost of the cleaning.
- While I accept it is likely that the warranty may have been voided by the dismantling, I cannot award compensation for this. The reasons being, there has not been an actual loss to the landlord. Furthermore, the washing machine was over 5 years old and would have been of little value.
- I am dismissing the landlord’s claim for compensation for the washing machine warranty.
- The tenant should receive her share of the bond back from the bond centre once the landlord has been paid for the exemplary damages set out in this order. Bond/suppression and filing fee:
- The bond is to be split between the parties as set out in the order at paragraph 1.
- Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- As the landlord has been successful, I am granting suppression of his name and details.