What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5134188 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 5134188?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,937.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134188?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11374810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5134188 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 5134188?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,937.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134188?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11374810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 5, 14 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5134188 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5134188 — net $2,924.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 January 2025	$3,937.14	Rent arrears to 17 January 2025
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,924.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,924.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Moises Tenorio and Elias Tenorio Quinones must pay [The landlord/s] $2,924.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Moises Tenorio attended on behalf of the tenant. Elias Quinones did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant committed an unlawful act by failing to quit the premises without reasonable excuse upon termination of the tenancy. The landlord seeks exemplary damages for this.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave the landlord notice to end the tenancy on 5 December 2024. This was a periodic tenancy. The tenant was required to give the landlord 28 days’ notice. 1 The end date of the tenancy was therefore 2 January 2025.
Section 60(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states: Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.
The tenant gave evidence that they were not residing in the property and had removed all of their items as early as 3 January 2025.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not remove all of their belongings and return the keys until 17 January 2025. The landlord submitted an email from the tenant dated 14 January 2025 stating: Hi Marnie Unfortunately I’m not done yet with the property I still have to grab the fridge, washing machine and few other items and do the lawnmower. When I done with everything I will definitely bringing the keys sometime this week ...
The tenant accepts that they returned the keys to the landlord on 17 January 2025. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(2B).
On the basis of the email provided by the landlord and accepted evidence that the tenant returned the keys to the landlord on 17 January 2025, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant remained in occupation of the premises until 17 January 2025. It follows that the tenant is liable to pay rent up to this date.
The landlord provided a rent summary, which proves that rent arrears were $3,937.14 up to 17 January 2025. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full for this amount. Did the tenant fail to quit the premises without reasonable excuse on the termination of the tenancy?
Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA requires a tenant to quit the premises on the termination of a tenancy. Failure to do this without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, which may attract exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3a)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenancy terminated on 2 January 2025 after the tenant gave notice to the landlord on 5 December 2024.
I have found at paragraphs [6] – [9] above that the tenant remained in occupation of the premises until 17 January 2025. Therefore, the tenant did not quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that their brother, Elias Quinones, was arrested and remanded into custody. The tenant did not state what date this occurred. The tenant claims that this meant they could not afford the property and gave notice to end the tenancy. Whilst I accept that this change of circumstances necessitated the tenant having to give notice to end the tenancy, I do not consider it explains why the tenant was not able to move out of the property and return the keys to the landlord on the termination date. The tenant had 28 days to do this, which I consider to be a reasonable amount of time.
The tenant gave evidence that the reason they were unable to vacate the premises and return the keys on the termination date was because they were doing stuff with their family and are “a busy guy.” The tenant declined to elaborate further.
I do not consider the explanation offered by the tenant to be a reasonable excuse. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant committed an unlawful act by failing to quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy without a reasonable excuse.

Should an order for exemplary damages be made against the tenant?

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) RTA.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: Before an award for 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.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
The first issue I must consider is whether the tenant acted intentionally when failing to quit the premises on the termination date without a reasonable excuse. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that they did. The only explanation offered by the tenant as to why they did not vacate the premises and return the keys on the termination date was because they were busy with family and are a “busy guy” in general. I do not consider that the tenant was negligent. It is clear from the evidence given that the tenant knew the date they needed to vacate the property and chose not to do so.
Having regard to the factors in section 109(3) RTA, I consider this is an appropriate case to award exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The landlord gave evidence that the failure of the tenant to quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy had a negative financial effect. The landlord gave evidence that they had found a suitable tenant to rent the property from 3 January 2025, but lost this tenant due to the delay in the property being available. The landlord gave evidence that the property has not been re-tenanted to date and is still being advertised. b. I consider that the tenant acted intentionally and without any thought for the landlord and the effect that their delay in exiting the premises would have. c. There is a public interest in ensuring that tenants leave the property and return the keys on the termination date. Landlords need to be able to make plans to replace leaving tenants with new ones. Incoming tenants might be required to give notice on their current rental based upon the start date of the new tenancy. The efforts of landlords and incoming tenants are likely to be frustrated if tenants fail to leave the property on the termination date without a reasonable excuse.
Having regard to the factors listed above and explanation given by the tenant, I consider it appropriate that the tenant pay the landlord $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. This figure reflects what I consider to be the very blasé attitude of the tenant in failing to quit the premises on the termination date without a reasonable excuse. It also fairly reflects the financial impact the tenant’s conduct has had on the landlord. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5134188 — net $2,924.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 January 2025	$3,937.14	Rent arrears to 17 January 2025
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,924.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,924.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Moises Tenorio and Elias Tenorio Quinones must pay [The landlord/s] $2,924.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Moises Tenorio attended on behalf of the tenant. Elias Quinones did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant committed an unlawful act by failing to quit the premises without reasonable excuse upon termination of the tenancy. The landlord seeks exemplary damages for this.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave the landlord notice to end the tenancy on 5 December 2024. This was a periodic tenancy. The tenant was required to give the landlord 28 days’ notice. 1 The end date of the tenancy was therefore 2 January 2025.
Section 60(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states: Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.
The tenant gave evidence that they were not residing in the property and had removed all of their items as early as 3 January 2025.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not remove all of their belongings and return the keys until 17 January 2025. The landlord submitted an email from the tenant dated 14 January 2025 stating: Hi Marnie Unfortunately I’m not done yet with the property I still have to grab the fridge, washing machine and few other items and do the lawnmower. When I done with everything I will definitely bringing the keys sometime this week ...
The tenant accepts that they returned the keys to the landlord on 17 January 2025. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(2B).
On the basis of the email provided by the landlord and accepted evidence that the tenant returned the keys to the landlord on 17 January 2025, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant remained in occupation of the premises until 17 January 2025. It follows that the tenant is liable to pay rent up to this date.
The landlord provided a rent summary, which proves that rent arrears were $3,937.14 up to 17 January 2025. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full for this amount. Did the tenant fail to quit the premises without reasonable excuse on the termination of the tenancy?
Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA requires a tenant to quit the premises on the termination of a tenancy. Failure to do this without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, which may attract exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3a)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenancy terminated on 2 January 2025 after the tenant gave notice to the landlord on 5 December 2024.
I have found at paragraphs [6] – [9] above that the tenant remained in occupation of the premises until 17 January 2025. Therefore, the tenant did not quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that their brother, Elias Quinones, was arrested and remanded into custody. The tenant did not state what date this occurred. The tenant claims that this meant they could not afford the property and gave notice to end the tenancy. Whilst I accept that this change of circumstances necessitated the tenant having to give notice to end the tenancy, I do not consider it explains why the tenant was not able to move out of the property and return the keys to the landlord on the termination date. The tenant had 28 days to do this, which I consider to be a reasonable amount of time.
The tenant gave evidence that the reason they were unable to vacate the premises and return the keys on the termination date was because they were doing stuff with their family and are “a busy guy.” The tenant declined to elaborate further.
I do not consider the explanation offered by the tenant to be a reasonable excuse. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant committed an unlawful act by failing to quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy without a reasonable excuse.

Should an order for exemplary damages be made against the tenant?

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) RTA.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: Before an award for 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.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
The first issue I must consider is whether the tenant acted intentionally when failing to quit the premises on the termination date without a reasonable excuse. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that they did. The only explanation offered by the tenant as to why they did not vacate the premises and return the keys on the termination date was because they were busy with family and are a “busy guy” in general. I do not consider that the tenant was negligent. It is clear from the evidence given that the tenant knew the date they needed to vacate the property and chose not to do so.
Having regard to the factors in section 109(3) RTA, I consider this is an appropriate case to award exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The landlord gave evidence that the failure of the tenant to quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy had a negative financial effect. The landlord gave evidence that they had found a suitable tenant to rent the property from 3 January 2025, but lost this tenant due to the delay in the property being available. The landlord gave evidence that the property has not been re-tenanted to date and is still being advertised. b. I consider that the tenant acted intentionally and without any thought for the landlord and the effect that their delay in exiting the premises would have. c. There is a public interest in ensuring that tenants leave the property and return the keys on the termination date. Landlords need to be able to make plans to replace leaving tenants with new ones. Incoming tenants might be required to give notice on their current rental based upon the start date of the new tenancy. The efforts of landlords and incoming tenants are likely to be frustrated if tenants fail to leave the property on the termination date without a reasonable excuse.
Having regard to the factors listed above and explanation given by the tenant, I consider it appropriate that the tenant pay the landlord $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. This figure reflects what I consider to be the very blasé attitude of the tenant in failing to quit the premises on the termination date without a reasonable excuse. It also fairly reflects the financial impact the tenant’s conduct has had on the landlord. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134188 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 14 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134188 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 14 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Should an order for exemplary damages be made against the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Should an order for exemplary damages be made against the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions