What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5052910 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5052910?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5052910?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5052910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5052910 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5052910?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5052910?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5052910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5052910 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant claimed exemplary damages for landlord violation of privacy and the failure of the landlord to lodge the bond.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Privacy

The tenant claims the landlord breached her privacy in a text message exchange between the landlord and the ex-partner/his current partner regarding the handling of the bond at the end of the tenancy. The ex-partner had paid the bond at the commencement of the tenancy on behalf of the tenant. This linkage gives some context to the later contact.

In September 2023 the landlord was asked by the ex-partner/his current partner if the bond had been retained after the tenancy ended. The landlord responded to the enquiry to advise the bond had been returned to the tenant. It was disputed by the parties at the hearing as to why that enquiry was made but nothing of significance turns on that. The tenant spoke of Family Court proceedings but confirmed these pertaining to access and not any dispute regarding relationship property. This message was later made available to the tenant.

The Privacy Act 2020 provides a framework for protecting an individual’s right to privacy of personal information, including the right of an individual to access their personal information, while recognising that other rights and interests may at times also need to be taken into account. This recognises the need to balance the respective interests of an individual and as well as others.

The tenant advised she has a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner that is still current.

There is no specific reference to the Privacy Act 2020 in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) except at s 66O(2)(b)(i) regarding house rules in a boarding house – and of no application here.

Section 38(2) RTA of the states the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.

Of note, with regard s 38, is it relates to the “use of the premises”. In this instance, the claimed landlord failure lags the tenancy ending several years and following Sibilis v Croft and Byrt [2023] NZDC 26882, no grounds for exemplary damages exist under s 38(2) once the tenant has left the premises.

Having considered the respective submissions and evidence, I do not consider the landlord engaging in the limited text exchange (and any other call around that time) contravenes any statutory provision in the RTA. The topic was the bond and there was some connection between that (how it was paid and by whom) and the subsequent enquiry regarding its release (kept or released) that makes the landlord initial engagement and response reasonable. Even if I am wrong in that, the messaging contained little of what I would consider “personal information” and a landlord response was justified given the linkage to the funding of the bond in 2020. Any such view of course is not binding on any complaint process or subsequent determination by the Privacy Commissioner.

I consider it more likely the landlord was unaware of the underlying tensions between the tenant and others when engaging in that communication and her subsequent actions in not engaging further, once aware, was appropriate.

I dismiss the claim for any landlord breach of privacy. Bond

The tenant claimed the landlord failed to lodge the bond.

The landlord acknowledged her failure to lodge the bond. It was returned in full to the tenant after the tenancy ended.

Section 109(2) RTA requires an application for such an unlaw act be made no later than 12 months after the termination of the tenancy. The landlord submitted any such claim was out of time per s 109(2)(a)(i). The tenant claimed she only became aware of the unlawful act in October 2024.

I agree with the landlord that the tenant was out of time and the claim for exemplary damages for the failure to lodge the bond is dismissed.

Even if I am wrong, 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) RTA.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.

Given the circumstances here I consider, even if available, no order for exemplary damages would have been made. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The applicant requested suppression in its application.

The applicant has been unsuccessful. However, both parties made compelling submissions as to why their interest in suppression outweighs any public interest in their names being disclosed. While the order traverses some legal points of interest, I do not consider the parties names are of any significant public interest and I exercise my discretion and order suppression of all names and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant claimed exemplary damages for landlord violation of privacy and the failure of the landlord to lodge the bond.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Privacy

The tenant advised she has a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner that is still current.

Section 38(2) RTA of the states the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.

I dismiss the claim for any landlord breach of privacy. Bond

The tenant claimed the landlord failed to lodge the bond.

The landlord acknowledged her failure to lodge the bond. It was returned in full to the tenant after the tenancy ended.

I agree with the landlord that the tenant was out of time and the claim for exemplary damages for the failure to lodge the bond is dismissed.

Given the circumstances here I consider, even if available, no order for exemplary damages would have been made. Suppression

The applicant requested suppression in its application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5052910 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5052910 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions