What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208282 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 5208282?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208282?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11941310-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208282 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 5208282?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208282?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11941310-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208282 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208282 — net $327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$300.00	ages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate and order the landlord to pay $300.00 in exemplary damages. Infringement fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$327.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$327.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
A1 Property Managers Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $327.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages $300.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $327.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $327.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
This is a boarding house tenancy.
A boarding house tenancy is defined in the RTA as follows: “boarding house tenancy means a residential tenancy in a boarding house— (a)that is intended to, or that does in fact, last for 28 days or more; and (b)under which the tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and has the right to the shared use of the facilities of the boarding house”
The tenant rented a room in this boarding house on 5 February 2024.
The tenant claims the landlord has requested ‘key money’ or failing this a letting fee for the granting or varying of a tenancy to a new room in the boarding house.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants in relation to a residential dispute that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The definition of landlord includes a prospective landlord, and the definition of tenancy includes prospective tenant according to s. 2 (1) of the RTA.
Although the parties in this case are already in a boarding house tenancy agreement for an existing room, for the purpose of this claim a tenancy agreement had not yet been entered in to. I am satisfied that the parties were in negotiation and therefore were prospective landlord and tenant at the time that the $264.50 was required as payment by the landlord. Therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Did the landlord require the payment of key money?

A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, continuation, extension, variation, renewal or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant wished to move to another room he considered more suitable in the boarding house and requested this.
The landlord sent the tenant an email dated 20 January 2025. The email included: “We acknowledge receipt of your request to change rooms. Our fees are as follows (all GST inclusive) Administration $92.00/hour Final Inspection $57.50 Ingoing Inspection $115.00 Total $264.50 If you would like to proceed please pay the first hours administration fee, Bond Inspection and Ingoing Inspection upfront.”
The tenant refused to pay these fees, so the landlord did not allow the tenancy for the new room to proceed.
The landlord claimed that this was not key money, but costs associated with ending the tenancy for the current room including administration for change in tenancy agreement and inspection fees.
There was conflicting evidence from the parties regarding whether the inspection fees labelled ‘ingoing inspection’ related to the tenancy for the existing room or the new room. However, it was clear that the tenant could not move to a tenancy for the new room if the fees were not paid.
The landlord further claimed that they were justified in charging fees pursuant to section 44A of the Act which allows a landlord to charge reasonable expenses on consenting to a tenant’s assigning or parting with possession of premises or terminating a tenancy by agreement.
Section 44A does not apply to boarding house tenancies pursuant to section 66A(c) of the RTA.
As a boarding house tenancy is for particular sleeping quarters, if the tenant wishes to change rooms this is commencing a new tenancy. This is evidenced by the landlord stating that a final inspection would need to be conducted for the room being moved out of.
The landlord stated that as the tenant hadn’t given 48 hours’ notice to terminate the first tenancy had not ended. The tenant stated that he did not want to give notice until he had been granted the new room and as the landlord required the fees payment up front this prevented him from being able to take the new room.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord, by requiring payment before the tenant could proceed with a tenancy for a new room, was requiring key money for the following reasons: (a)The money sought was not rent or bond. (b)The landlord stated that the tenant could not proceed with moving into the new room until the money was paid. (c)A tenant applying for a room is in the same position regardless of whether they are moving from a room in the same premises or moving from a different premises. They are commencing a new tenancy and ending a previous one. It is not unusual for a tenant to enter into negotiations for a new premises before giving notice for the previous one. (d)There is no provision in the RTA for the landlord to charge a tenant for entry or exit inspections.
The landlord requested money for varying or granting a tenancy. I find that this amounts to a request for key money and is an unlawful act.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

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 (s 109(3) RTA).
The landlord intentionally sought that the tenant pay money other than rent or bond before they could enter into an agreement to a tenancy for a different room.
The effect of this was that the tenant was unable to afford the cost of moving to a room that he considered to be more suitable.
It is in the public interest that landlords comply with their obligations and do not require payment beyond the rent and bond for the granting or variation of a boarding house tenancy.
I have considered the factors in this case including that the tenant missed out on being able to move as a result of the payment required. Also, that there is no evidence before me of the landlord previously being ordered to pay exemplary damages for a breach of this kind. I find that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate and order the landlord to pay $300.00 in exemplary damages. Infringement fee
The tenant also sought infringement fines together with exemplary damages and referred to section 17(3A). Infringement notices can only be issued by the chief executive as stated in section 126C of the RTA. Filing fee/Suppression
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and suppress the tenant identifying details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208282 — net $327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$300.00	ages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate and order the landlord to pay $300.00 in exemplary damages. Infringement fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$327.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$327.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
A1 Property Managers Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $327.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages $300.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $327.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $327.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
This is a boarding house tenancy.
A boarding house tenancy is defined in the RTA as follows: “boarding house tenancy means a residential tenancy in a boarding house— (a)that is intended to, or that does in fact, last for 28 days or more; and (b)under which the tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and has the right to the shared use of the facilities of the boarding house”
The tenant rented a room in this boarding house on 5 February 2024.
The tenant claims the landlord has requested ‘key money’ or failing this a letting fee for the granting or varying of a tenancy to a new room in the boarding house.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants in relation to a residential dispute that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The definition of landlord includes a prospective landlord, and the definition of tenancy includes prospective tenant according to s. 2 (1) of the RTA.
Although the parties in this case are already in a boarding house tenancy agreement for an existing room, for the purpose of this claim a tenancy agreement had not yet been entered in to. I am satisfied that the parties were in negotiation and therefore were prospective landlord and tenant at the time that the $264.50 was required as payment by the landlord. Therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Did the landlord require the payment of key money?

A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, continuation, extension, variation, renewal or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant wished to move to another room he considered more suitable in the boarding house and requested this.
The landlord sent the tenant an email dated 20 January 2025. The email included: “We acknowledge receipt of your request to change rooms. Our fees are as follows (all GST inclusive) Administration $92.00/hour Final Inspection $57.50 Ingoing Inspection $115.00 Total $264.50 If you would like to proceed please pay the first hours administration fee, Bond Inspection and Ingoing Inspection upfront.”
The tenant refused to pay these fees, so the landlord did not allow the tenancy for the new room to proceed.
The landlord claimed that this was not key money, but costs associated with ending the tenancy for the current room including administration for change in tenancy agreement and inspection fees.
There was conflicting evidence from the parties regarding whether the inspection fees labelled ‘ingoing inspection’ related to the tenancy for the existing room or the new room. However, it was clear that the tenant could not move to a tenancy for the new room if the fees were not paid.
The landlord further claimed that they were justified in charging fees pursuant to section 44A of the Act which allows a landlord to charge reasonable expenses on consenting to a tenant’s assigning or parting with possession of premises or terminating a tenancy by agreement.
Section 44A does not apply to boarding house tenancies pursuant to section 66A(c) of the RTA.
As a boarding house tenancy is for particular sleeping quarters, if the tenant wishes to change rooms this is commencing a new tenancy. This is evidenced by the landlord stating that a final inspection would need to be conducted for the room being moved out of.
The landlord stated that as the tenant hadn’t given 48 hours’ notice to terminate the first tenancy had not ended. The tenant stated that he did not want to give notice until he had been granted the new room and as the landlord required the fees payment up front this prevented him from being able to take the new room.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord, by requiring payment before the tenant could proceed with a tenancy for a new room, was requiring key money for the following reasons: (a)The money sought was not rent or bond. (b)The landlord stated that the tenant could not proceed with moving into the new room until the money was paid. (c)A tenant applying for a room is in the same position regardless of whether they are moving from a room in the same premises or moving from a different premises. They are commencing a new tenancy and ending a previous one. It is not unusual for a tenant to enter into negotiations for a new premises before giving notice for the previous one. (d)There is no provision in the RTA for the landlord to charge a tenant for entry or exit inspections.
The landlord requested money for varying or granting a tenancy. I find that this amounts to a request for key money and is an unlawful act.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

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 (s 109(3) RTA).
The landlord intentionally sought that the tenant pay money other than rent or bond before they could enter into an agreement to a tenancy for a different room.
The effect of this was that the tenant was unable to afford the cost of moving to a room that he considered to be more suitable.
It is in the public interest that landlords comply with their obligations and do not require payment beyond the rent and bond for the granting or variation of a boarding house tenancy.
I have considered the factors in this case including that the tenant missed out on being able to move as a result of the payment required. Also, that there is no evidence before me of the landlord previously being ordered to pay exemplary damages for a breach of this kind. I find that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate and order the landlord to pay $300.00 in exemplary damages. Infringement fee
The tenant also sought infringement fines together with exemplary damages and referred to section 17(3A). Infringement notices can only be issued by the chief executive as stated in section 126C of the RTA. Filing fee/Suppression
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and suppress the tenant identifying details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208282 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208282 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Did the landlord require the payment of key money?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Did the landlord require the payment of key money?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions