How much money was awarded in case 5208280?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208280?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11987728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5208280?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208280?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11987728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208280 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208280 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (consent	$500.00		Rent arrears (consent
Exemplary damages (non-lodgement of bond		$250.00	Exemplary damages (non-lodgement of bond
Exemplary damages (failure to appoint agent		$250.00	Exemplary damages (failure to appoint agent
Total award	$500.00	$500.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Rachel Lei-Aloha Louise Leohau and Eikilau Lei-Aloha Louise Leohau, at 5.00pm on Friday 20 June 2025

The landlord must immediately lodge the bond of $1,500.00 with the Bond Centre.

The tenants’ application for exemplary damages and/or compensation for discrimination, breach of privacy/quiet enjoyment, and wrongful termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is set-off by the amounts awarded to the tenants as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords Mr and Mrs Leohau attended by video link from Australia. Background

The tenancy started on 16 August 2024.

On 21 December 2024, the landlords relocated to Australia. They did not appoint an agent as required by section 16A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) despite knowing they would be out of New Zealand for more than 21 days.

On 15 August 2024, the day before the tenancy started, the tenants paid a bond of $1,500.00. The landlords did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.

On 23 January 2025, the landlords, via their agent (Mr Leohau’s sister) served a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenants were required to vacate the tenancy by 25 April 2025. They did not vacate as the notice required.

The landlords’ agent, though not known by the tenants to be their agent, arrived at the premises unannounced to arrange an inspection. Four people arrived – a female, 2 males and a young boy. The tenant who was at home and who did not know the identity of the people who arrived felt that they acted forcefully. She agreed to an inspection at a later time once advised of the relationship between them and the landlord.

The tenants believed that the landlords gave notice to terminate the tenancy not for the stated reason (requiring the premises for family) but because they discovered the criminal record of one tenant and the tenants’ previous rental history.

Concerned about these issues, the tenants lodged their application for exemplary damages/ compensation for landlord breaches.

The landlords cross applied. They seek a possession order, based on their 90- day notice to terminate the tenancy, and rent arrears. Issues

The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Should the landlord be granted possession of the premises? •Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond? •Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure (or delay) to appoint an agent? •Did the landlords discriminate against the tenants? •Did the landlords terminate the tenancy without grounds under section 60AA RTA? •Did the landlords breach the tenants’ privacy? Relevant statutory provisions

Section 16A(2) RTA requires a landlord to appoint an agent before departing New Zealand if they know they will be absent for more than 21 consecutive days. They must notify the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service and notify the Bond Centre.

Section 12 RTA provides that discrimination is an unlawful act.

Section 19 RTA sets out a landlord’s duties on receipt of a bond. The bond must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23-working days of receipt. A failure to do so is an unlawful act.

Section 60AA RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to give notice to terminate a tenancy (or apply to terminate a tenancy) knowing they are not entitled to do so.

Section 38(2) RTA provides that 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. Relevant legal considerations

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion

Should the landlord be granted possession of the premises?

The parties agreed to end the tenancy on Friday 20 June 2025 at 5.00pm. The landlords’ agent will collect the key from the tenants at the property then, or the tenants will deliver the keys to the landlords’ address for service. I have therefore made a termination and possession order by consent.

While there were no rent arrears at the time the landlords made their application both parties agreed that as of today, there are rent arrears of $500.00. They agreed that the Tribunal should address that issue as well.

I have made a rent arrears order by consent. However, the amount awarded to the landlords for rent is set-off by the exemplary damages awarded to the tenants. Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond?

The landlords did not lodge the bond, nor have they since. I have made an order for them to lodge the bond immediately even though the tenancy will end this Friday. The tenants are entitled to that protection in case a dispute about the bond arises once the tenancy ends.

The landlords said they were unaware they had to lodge the bond, this being their first tenancy. When they later enquired, they were told to keep the bond pending the hearing today.

Ignorance of the law is not defence. Landlords are expected to know their responsibilities under the RTA.

The landlords’ failure to lodge the bond was against the tenants’ interests and the public interest. It has caused the tenants concern. A failure to know their responsibilities can be viewed as an intentional act by the landlords.

For this breach I award the tenants $250.00. Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure (or delay) to appoint an agent?

The landlords failed to meet their responsibility to appoint an agent and notify the tenants of the details of their agent knowing they would be absent from New Zealand for more than 21 days.

For the same reasons given for awarding the tenants exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond, I award the tenants exemplary damages of $250.00 for this breach as well.

Did the landlords discriminate against the tenants?

Discrimination under the RTA is specific; it is not the lay understanding of discrimination. Discrimination is defined in section 12(1) RTA as: (a) discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Acy 1993, and (b) the giving of an instruction or the stating of an intention in contravention of subsection (2).

Here, the landlords did not discriminate against the tenants in terms of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of the tenancy agreement or give an instruction to the effect.

The landlords gave evidence, and I accept, that they knew of the tenants’ circumstances (criminal conviction; rental history) but had sympathy for them as they knew they were staying in emergency accommodation with 7-8 children. They said based on their own experiences renting, they agreed to rent the premises to these tenants.

The tenants raised the issue of them keeping airguns at the premises which they thought might have counted against them resulting in discrimination.

Having heard the landlords’ evidence, I do not find any discrimination established so far as the keeping of firearms is concerned.

I dismiss the application for exemplary damages for alleged discrimination. Did the landlords terminate the tenancy without grounds under section 60AA RTA?

The landlords gave a valid reason for terminating the tenancy; they wanted the premises for a family member’s use. In evidence, the landlords confirmed that remained the case.

The tenants accepted that the landlords’ reason for terminating the tenancy was a valid reason under the provisions of the RTA. However, they believed that the notice was defective because of the way the ampersand (&) was written and the fact that the names had been written on the notice (and not signed) by the landlords is person.

I find that the notice was valid. It was completed by the landlords’ agent on their instruction and with their consent. The terms were clear. That the landlords’ names were written rather than their signatures attached does not invalidate the notice.

I dismiss the tenants’ application for exemplary damages. The landlord had valid grounds to terminate the tenancy. Did the landlords’ agent breach the tenants’ privacy?

This claim relates to the landlords’ agent and family members turning up unannounced to deliver the termination notice and to inspect the premises.

The tenants agreed for an inspection to be conducted at a later date. Though unexpected, neither the first visit, nor the second, meets the threshold for a breach of quiet enjoyment and/or privacy. A landlord or their agent, can attend at the premises provided they do not enter inside without permission or without the required period of notice to enter.

The tenants have not established any breach of quiet enjoyment and/or privacy. I dismiss their application for compensation and/or exemplary damages. Result

The tenancy is terminated by consent. Possession will pass to the landlords at

00pm on Friday 20 June 2025.

The landlords must lodge the bond of $1,500.00 with the Bond Centre immediately.

The landlords’ claim for rent arrears is proved (and accepted). From that will be deducted exemplary damages of an equivalent amount - $250.00 each for the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond and failure to appoint an agent and notify the tenants as required.

The remainder of the tenants’ claims are dismissed.

No award of the filing fees is made. Each party has succeeded to an extent. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression

The landlords did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought, and are entitled to, an order for name suppression as their application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (consent	$500.00		Rent arrears (consent
Exemplary damages (non-lodgement of bond		$250.00	Exemplary damages (non-lodgement of bond
Exemplary damages (failure to appoint agent		$250.00	Exemplary damages (failure to appoint agent
Total award	$500.00	$500.00