What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5062308 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 5062308?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Utilities Accepted As Owed: $785.44 awarded to landlord; When Outside New Zealand: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062308?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11404531-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5062308 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 5062308?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Utilities Accepted As Owed: $785.44 awarded to landlord; When Outside New Zealand: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062308?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11404531-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5062308 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062308 — net $7,591.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Utilities accepted as owed	$785.44		Utilities accepted as owed
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$750.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Failing to appoint an agent		$800.00	Failing to appoint an agent
when outside New Zealand		$800.00	when outside New Zealand
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond held		$6,000.00	Bond held
Total award	$785.44	$8,377.00
Net award		$7,591.56
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,591.56

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Claudine Garcia De Paiva must pay [The tenant/s] $7,591.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was set down for a video hearing today. The tenant attended. The landlord did not attend. I tired to call the landlord at least three times over 15 minutes 9.30 am to 9.45am, on the cell phone number provided on the landlord’s application. Each call went to answerphone.
I also called a number for the landlord in Australia provided by the tenant, that too was unanswered.
The Tribunal can proceed to hear a matter in the absence of a party. I consider that I have given the landlord sufficient opportunity to attend today’s hearing and have proceeded in her absence. I note that the Tribunal has not received any application for an adjournment. The landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damage to her property. The tenant disputes these claims. The landlord has not proven her claims against the tenant, apart from those accepted by the tenant and therefore the rest of the landlord’s claims are dismissed. Tenant accepts amount owed for electricity, internet, gas and water.
The tenant accepts that at the end of the tenancy she owed $686.84 for electricity, internet and gas at the end of the tenancy and a further $98.60 for water. Those amounts are to be deducted from the bond. The tenant’s claims
The tenant has claimed: a. That the landlord did not lodge her bond with tenancy services. (Breach of s19(2) RTA). b. That the landlord did not appoint an agent despite being outside New Zealand for the whole of the tenancy. (Breach of s16A RTA) c. That the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment of the property. (Breach of s38 RTA) d. The tenant seeks exemplary damages for each of the breaches along with return of the bond of $6000.00 less the accepted utility amounts owed. Failure to lodge the bond.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 the landlord the bond of $6000.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as required. The landlord admits in correspondence with the tenant that she kept the bond in a separate savings account. I am satisfied that the landlord 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.
In the case of TMT Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the Judge said: “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." Para 37.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $750 for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, this takes into account: •The amount of the bond is significant. The tenant has not been able to use the bond for her next property. •That the tenant has been placed in an uncertain position because the landlord has not lodged their bond. •That it is in the public interest to deter landlord’s from failing to lodge bond. •That the bond is the tenant’s money, and the tenant should be protected from landlords raising claims against them and then claiming the bond. The lodgement of the bond with the Bond Centre, a third party, safeguards the tenant from being at the mercy of any claim the landlord wishes to make at the end of the tenancy. Failure to appoint an agent.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has admitted in correspondence that she now lives in Australia and that she did so for most (if not all) of the tenancy. The landlord is currently in Brazil. As the landlord has not appointed an agent for this tenancy, they have committed an unlawful act.
I award the tenant $800.00 for this breach in coming to this amount I have taken into consideration: a. That if the landlord had appointed an agent, many of the claims which the parties have made against each other are unlikely to have arisen. b. That it is difficult to communicate with a landlord who is overseas, because of time differences, and this can lead to a delay in resolving small disputes. c. That it is in the public interest that an award is made to deter other overseas based landlords from failing to appoint agents. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
Having considered all evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property in circumstances that amount to harassment because: a. The correspondence between the tenant and the landlord during the tenancy shows a landlord who is micromanaging and controlling of the tenant. I understand that the landlord may have viewed this as being particular about who lived in her property and the way her property was maintained and used by the tenant. Landlords should understand that when they rent their property out, they do not get to dictate the way the tenant and their family live in the property. Provided that the tenants comply with their responsibilities in the RTA then a landlord cannot tell the tenant who can come to the property, how long a visitor can stay, how often or the way to clean a shower, or commenting on the high use of electricity or water. b. The landlord clearly had access to wifi and monitored it. This is evidenced by the correspondence sent between the landlord and the tenant about warnings on the wifi. The landlord still had the door notification on so the landlord still had access of knowing when people were coming in and out of the house. c. The landlord also asked the tenant to use her cleaner [redacted]. [Redacted] then reported back to the tenant what was happening in the house. This is evidenced in the correspondence between the parties. d. The landlord made a number of unfounded accusations and made unfounded and inappropriate comments in correspondence after the tenant gave notice, these comments were clearly intended to annoy, worry and distress the tenant.
I award $800.00 for the breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant tells me that she felt powerless, micromanaged and watched over her tenancy. As a result, she could not enjoy her home. She says she was scared of the landlord and losing her bond and therefore tried to keep on her good side by saying that she was thankful and the landlord had been good to her. She says that the evidence filed by the landlord shows that the landlord was watching her, neighbours were watching, the cleaner was watching and that she had no privacy in her home.
Tenants are entitled to live in a home in a way they choose, provided they are not breaching the RTA. A landlord who receives information from a cleaner or friend or neighbour needs to be very careful about the way they use that information to ensure that they are not breaching the tenant’s privacy and use of the property. Usually if the landlord receives information about the cleanliness of a property then the landlord would arrange an inspection, or if they were concerned about the tenant damaging the property or installing items, then again they would given notice to conduct an inspection.
I am left with the clear impression from reading all the evidence on the file and listening to the tenant, that the landlord was very particular about her home, and was very controlling of the way that the tenant’s lived in the home. I am satisfied that this had a significant impact on the tenant’s enjoyment of her home. [The tenant/s]
As the tenant has been successful in her application, I award her the filing fee and grant her name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062308 — net $7,591.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Utilities accepted as owed	$785.44		Utilities accepted as owed
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$750.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Failing to appoint an agent		$800.00	Failing to appoint an agent
when outside New Zealand		$800.00	when outside New Zealand
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond held		$6,000.00	Bond held
Total award	$785.44	$8,377.00
Net award		$7,591.56
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,591.56

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Claudine Garcia De Paiva must pay [The tenant/s] $7,591.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was set down for a video hearing today. The tenant attended. The landlord did not attend. I tired to call the landlord at least three times over 15 minutes 9.30 am to 9.45am, on the cell phone number provided on the landlord’s application. Each call went to answerphone.
I also called a number for the landlord in Australia provided by the tenant, that too was unanswered.
The Tribunal can proceed to hear a matter in the absence of a party. I consider that I have given the landlord sufficient opportunity to attend today’s hearing and have proceeded in her absence. I note that the Tribunal has not received any application for an adjournment. The landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damage to her property. The tenant disputes these claims. The landlord has not proven her claims against the tenant, apart from those accepted by the tenant and therefore the rest of the landlord’s claims are dismissed. Tenant accepts amount owed for electricity, internet, gas and water.
The tenant accepts that at the end of the tenancy she owed $686.84 for electricity, internet and gas at the end of the tenancy and a further $98.60 for water. Those amounts are to be deducted from the bond. The tenant’s claims
The tenant has claimed: a. That the landlord did not lodge her bond with tenancy services. (Breach of s19(2) RTA). b. That the landlord did not appoint an agent despite being outside New Zealand for the whole of the tenancy. (Breach of s16A RTA) c. That the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment of the property. (Breach of s38 RTA) d. The tenant seeks exemplary damages for each of the breaches along with return of the bond of $6000.00 less the accepted utility amounts owed. Failure to lodge the bond.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 the landlord the bond of $6000.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as required. The landlord admits in correspondence with the tenant that she kept the bond in a separate savings account. I am satisfied that the landlord 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.
In the case of TMT Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the Judge said: “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." Para 37.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $750 for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, this takes into account: •The amount of the bond is significant. The tenant has not been able to use the bond for her next property. •That the tenant has been placed in an uncertain position because the landlord has not lodged their bond. •That it is in the public interest to deter landlord’s from failing to lodge bond. •That the bond is the tenant’s money, and the tenant should be protected from landlords raising claims against them and then claiming the bond. The lodgement of the bond with the Bond Centre, a third party, safeguards the tenant from being at the mercy of any claim the landlord wishes to make at the end of the tenancy. Failure to appoint an agent.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has admitted in correspondence that she now lives in Australia and that she did so for most (if not all) of the tenancy. The landlord is currently in Brazil. As the landlord has not appointed an agent for this tenancy, they have committed an unlawful act.
I award the tenant $800.00 for this breach in coming to this amount I have taken into consideration: a. That if the landlord had appointed an agent, many of the claims which the parties have made against each other are unlikely to have arisen. b. That it is difficult to communicate with a landlord who is overseas, because of time differences, and this can lead to a delay in resolving small disputes. c. That it is in the public interest that an award is made to deter other overseas based landlords from failing to appoint agents. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
Having considered all evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property in circumstances that amount to harassment because: a. The correspondence between the tenant and the landlord during the tenancy shows a landlord who is micromanaging and controlling of the tenant. I understand that the landlord may have viewed this as being particular about who lived in her property and the way her property was maintained and used by the tenant. Landlords should understand that when they rent their property out, they do not get to dictate the way the tenant and their family live in the property. Provided that the tenants comply with their responsibilities in the RTA then a landlord cannot tell the tenant who can come to the property, how long a visitor can stay, how often or the way to clean a shower, or commenting on the high use of electricity or water. b. The landlord clearly had access to wifi and monitored it. This is evidenced by the correspondence sent between the landlord and the tenant about warnings on the wifi. The landlord still had the door notification on so the landlord still had access of knowing when people were coming in and out of the house. c. The landlord also asked the tenant to use her cleaner [redacted]. [Redacted] then reported back to the tenant what was happening in the house. This is evidenced in the correspondence between the parties. d. The landlord made a number of unfounded accusations and made unfounded and inappropriate comments in correspondence after the tenant gave notice, these comments were clearly intended to annoy, worry and distress the tenant.
I award $800.00 for the breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant tells me that she felt powerless, micromanaged and watched over her tenancy. As a result, she could not enjoy her home. She says she was scared of the landlord and losing her bond and therefore tried to keep on her good side by saying that she was thankful and the landlord had been good to her. She says that the evidence filed by the landlord shows that the landlord was watching her, neighbours were watching, the cleaner was watching and that she had no privacy in her home.
Tenants are entitled to live in a home in a way they choose, provided they are not breaching the RTA. A landlord who receives information from a cleaner or friend or neighbour needs to be very careful about the way they use that information to ensure that they are not breaching the tenant’s privacy and use of the property. Usually if the landlord receives information about the cleanliness of a property then the landlord would arrange an inspection, or if they were concerned about the tenant damaging the property or installing items, then again they would given notice to conduct an inspection.
I am left with the clear impression from reading all the evidence on the file and listening to the tenant, that the landlord was very particular about her home, and was very controlling of the way that the tenant’s lived in the home. I am satisfied that this had a significant impact on the tenant’s enjoyment of her home. [The tenant/s]
As the tenant has been successful in her application, I award her the filing fee and grant her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062308 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062308 — Exemplary damages

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