What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297739 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5297739?

Compensation: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Storage Of Goods: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297739?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12575167-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297739 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5297739?

Compensation: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Storage Of Goods: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297739?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12575167-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

43 Morvern Crescent, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297739 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297739 — net $1,070.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Compensation: Storage of goods	$350.00	Storage of goods
Compensation loss of use of shed	$220.00	Compensation loss of use of shed
Net award	$1,070.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,070.00

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 1 December 2025: a) All the landlords’ belongings are to be removed from the shed and garages located at the premises.
The tenant will give the landlord access to the premises once correct notice is given and shall not prevent the landlord in any way from removing their items.
Reliable Rental Services Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties appeared at the hearing. The tenant bought a support person.
The property manager said that she was helping the owner manage the premises but sometimes one or the other were dealing with the tenant. The owner, Enos Van der Putten, is not named on the tenancy agreement.
The tenant applied for compensation for storing items and for not being able to use the shed, and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord filed a cross application for compensation for not allowing access.
The landlord said they had updated their application to include further claims but neither the Tribunal nor the other party had received notice of this. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of this update and because the other party had no notice of the content of this claim it was not considered at the hearing.
All other claims were withdrawn.
The tenancy began on 28 March 2025 after a previous property became unavailable and the property manager offered a replacement. The tenant had accepted the first property because it had a double garage.
The tenant googled the new property and asked the landlord if it was a two bedroom.
On 17 March the property manager replied that it was three bedrooms with a shed. The tenant did not see the property before signing the tenancy agreement on 19 March.
The shed had three areas which the landlord explained as a garage, a filled in garage and a storage shed. She believed that the text of 17 March made it clear that the garages were not included.
On 28 March 2025 the tenant moved in bringing with her a moving truck with items from her storage shed in Gisborne. The tenant discovered that the shed and garages on the premises were filled with the landlords’ items. The tenant had nowhere to store the belongings that did not fit into the house. The truck returned to Gisborne and put items back into storage.
A text dated 6 May 2025 was provided from the tenant asking about the shed and when the landlord was going to empty it. Should the tenant be compensated for storage costs and not being able to use the shed?
The landlord believed that at no time was the tenancy to include the garages. These were filled with the owners wood and other items. She based her claim on the text of 17 May that the tenancy was three bedrooms and a shed.
The landlord said that the owner had twice removed some items from the premises, and she was working to have him remove the rest, but as at the date of the hearing this has not happened.
The shed was not defined as separate from a garage, there were no plans attached to the tenancy agreement showing that part of the property was excluded or not for the exclusive use of the tenant. The landlord said it was made clear in communications with the tenant that this garage area was not for her use but there was no evidence provided to support this.
The tenant disputes being told the garages were not included.
The tenant continues to pay for the storage unit at $350.00 per month and seeks compensation for having this extra cost. An invoice for one month provided and the tenant amended her claim in the hearing for one month compensation acknowledging that the landlord had tried to remove items in June.
A tenancy agreement is a contract, and the terms of this agreement were that the tenant paid rent for the premises at the tenancy address. Premises includes any part of any premises and any land or appurtenances, other than facilities; See section 2 RTA. Appurtenances includes additional structures or features attached to or forming part of the rented premises such as garages, carports and garden sheds except where they are provided for the non-exclusive use of the tenant.
As part of a tenancy a tenant is entitled to the exclusive and uninterrupted use of the premises and their rights to this are protected under the RTA See section 38 RTA.
The questions is, were the garages for the non-exclusive use of the tenant and I find that they were not. There was no evidence provided that the tenant knew, or should have known, that the garages were not included in the tenancy agreement ,and that the landlord was using them for storage.
The information contained in the email of the 17 March was not enough for the tenant to assume only part of the property would be rented to her.
The tenant also sought compensation by way of abatement of rent. She had asked the owner for this, but it was denied. The claim is based on her paying rent for a property that she could not fully use.
There are two claims here for compensation. Compensation is awarded for actual loss suffered by a breach and is intended to restore a party to their original position had the breach not occurred.
On 23 May tenant got access to small shed and landlord tried to clear it out the garages on 9 June. Tenant seeking costs to this date.
I find that an abatement of rent is appropriate as the tenant signed the tenancy agreement and paid rent for a property with storage believing she could access and store items in shed. The estimated reasonable cost for this is calculated at $20.00 per week for 11 weeks, to 9 June when the tenant said she would claim to ,being $220.00.
The tenant established that she had to pay for storage for her items because there was no space and her moving truck had to return to replace items in storage. She sought reimbursement of one month’s storage being $350.00 and this is awarded as it is a cost that she would not have had to pay if the garages were available at the start of the tenancy.
The parties agreed at the hearing that the landlord will remove all the items form the garage and shed by 1 December 2025.
The tenant will grant access to the landlord will not prevent him entering the property once correct notice was given.

Has the landlord failed 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 landlord agreed that due to a misunderstanding between the property manager and the owner as to who was responsible for this, the bond was not lodged until the end of June 2025.It was paid to the landlord on 19 March, before the tenancy began. I find they have 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.
As discussed at the hearing the bond is not the landlord’s money. It is the tenants to be held by the independent bond centre as security for end of tenancy claims and costs. The landlord had use of the tenant’s money for this time. It is important that property managers know and comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to award damages of $500.00 for this breach.
The tenant withdrew the rest of her claims. The landlord’s application.
The landlord sought compensation for the owner not being able to access the premises and remove his items on the weekend of 14 and 15 May 2025.
The landlord had been to the premises and removed some items and purchased two containers for $9000.00 for storage.
Notice was given to the tenant on 9 June that the landlord had purchased the containers and ‘wanted to start moving belongings from your shed this Saturday and Sunday’ .
The tenant said that she would not accept the items from being moved until compensation was discussed and asked the landlord to get back to her by Thursday.
The landlord sent a reminder on Friday 13 May that the owner was coming in the weekend, the tenant replied that I do not give permission.
At the hearing the tenant said it was because she was away that weekend for her birthday and wanted to be present when other people were at her property.
The landlord said the owner had organised others to help and was not happy that this was postponed as he had few spare weekends.
A landlord can enter a premises when correct notice has been given to carry out necessary repairs, or maintenance. I have found that the garages should have been empty for the tenant to use.
The landlord claimed reimbursement of $9000.00 for the containers as she said that they are now useless. No invoice was provided and even if it was, I would dismiss the claim. The landlord still has the containers and is required by this order to remove his items by 1 December 2025, presumably to store in the containers.
This claim is dismissed.
There was no claim for damages filed by the landlord and no record of any updated application.
The landlord withdrew the further claims contained in the original application and all other claims are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297739 — net $1,070.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Compensation: Storage of goods	$350.00	Storage of goods
Compensation loss of use of shed	$220.00	Compensation loss of use of shed
Net award	$1,070.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,070.00

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 1 December 2025: a) All the landlords’ belongings are to be removed from the shed and garages located at the premises.
The tenant will give the landlord access to the premises once correct notice is given and shall not prevent the landlord in any way from removing their items.
Reliable Rental Services Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties appeared at the hearing. The tenant bought a support person.
The property manager said that she was helping the owner manage the premises but sometimes one or the other were dealing with the tenant. The owner, Enos Van der Putten, is not named on the tenancy agreement.
The tenant applied for compensation for storing items and for not being able to use the shed, and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord filed a cross application for compensation for not allowing access.
The landlord said they had updated their application to include further claims but neither the Tribunal nor the other party had received notice of this. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of this update and because the other party had no notice of the content of this claim it was not considered at the hearing.
All other claims were withdrawn.
The tenancy began on 28 March 2025 after a previous property became unavailable and the property manager offered a replacement. The tenant had accepted the first property because it had a double garage.
The tenant googled the new property and asked the landlord if it was a two bedroom.
On 17 March the property manager replied that it was three bedrooms with a shed. The tenant did not see the property before signing the tenancy agreement on 19 March.
The shed had three areas which the landlord explained as a garage, a filled in garage and a storage shed. She believed that the text of 17 March made it clear that the garages were not included.
On 28 March 2025 the tenant moved in bringing with her a moving truck with items from her storage shed in Gisborne. The tenant discovered that the shed and garages on the premises were filled with the landlords’ items. The tenant had nowhere to store the belongings that did not fit into the house. The truck returned to Gisborne and put items back into storage.
A text dated 6 May 2025 was provided from the tenant asking about the shed and when the landlord was going to empty it. Should the tenant be compensated for storage costs and not being able to use the shed?
The landlord believed that at no time was the tenancy to include the garages. These were filled with the owners wood and other items. She based her claim on the text of 17 May that the tenancy was three bedrooms and a shed.
The landlord said that the owner had twice removed some items from the premises, and she was working to have him remove the rest, but as at the date of the hearing this has not happened.
The shed was not defined as separate from a garage, there were no plans attached to the tenancy agreement showing that part of the property was excluded or not for the exclusive use of the tenant. The landlord said it was made clear in communications with the tenant that this garage area was not for her use but there was no evidence provided to support this.
The tenant disputes being told the garages were not included.
The tenant continues to pay for the storage unit at $350.00 per month and seeks compensation for having this extra cost. An invoice for one month provided and the tenant amended her claim in the hearing for one month compensation acknowledging that the landlord had tried to remove items in June.
A tenancy agreement is a contract, and the terms of this agreement were that the tenant paid rent for the premises at the tenancy address. Premises includes any part of any premises and any land or appurtenances, other than facilities; See section 2 RTA. Appurtenances includes additional structures or features attached to or forming part of the rented premises such as garages, carports and garden sheds except where they are provided for the non-exclusive use of the tenant.
As part of a tenancy a tenant is entitled to the exclusive and uninterrupted use of the premises and their rights to this are protected under the RTA See section 38 RTA.
The questions is, were the garages for the non-exclusive use of the tenant and I find that they were not. There was no evidence provided that the tenant knew, or should have known, that the garages were not included in the tenancy agreement ,and that the landlord was using them for storage.
The information contained in the email of the 17 March was not enough for the tenant to assume only part of the property would be rented to her.
The tenant also sought compensation by way of abatement of rent. She had asked the owner for this, but it was denied. The claim is based on her paying rent for a property that she could not fully use.
There are two claims here for compensation. Compensation is awarded for actual loss suffered by a breach and is intended to restore a party to their original position had the breach not occurred.
On 23 May tenant got access to small shed and landlord tried to clear it out the garages on 9 June. Tenant seeking costs to this date.
I find that an abatement of rent is appropriate as the tenant signed the tenancy agreement and paid rent for a property with storage believing she could access and store items in shed. The estimated reasonable cost for this is calculated at $20.00 per week for 11 weeks, to 9 June when the tenant said she would claim to ,being $220.00.
The tenant established that she had to pay for storage for her items because there was no space and her moving truck had to return to replace items in storage. She sought reimbursement of one month’s storage being $350.00 and this is awarded as it is a cost that she would not have had to pay if the garages were available at the start of the tenancy.
The parties agreed at the hearing that the landlord will remove all the items form the garage and shed by 1 December 2025.
The tenant will grant access to the landlord will not prevent him entering the property once correct notice was given.

Has the landlord failed 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 landlord agreed that due to a misunderstanding between the property manager and the owner as to who was responsible for this, the bond was not lodged until the end of June 2025.It was paid to the landlord on 19 March, before the tenancy began. I find they have 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.
As discussed at the hearing the bond is not the landlord’s money. It is the tenants to be held by the independent bond centre as security for end of tenancy claims and costs. The landlord had use of the tenant’s money for this time. It is important that property managers know and comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to award damages of $500.00 for this breach.
The tenant withdrew the rest of her claims. The landlord’s application.
The landlord sought compensation for the owner not being able to access the premises and remove his items on the weekend of 14 and 15 May 2025.
The landlord had been to the premises and removed some items and purchased two containers for $9000.00 for storage.
Notice was given to the tenant on 9 June that the landlord had purchased the containers and ‘wanted to start moving belongings from your shed this Saturday and Sunday’ .
The tenant said that she would not accept the items from being moved until compensation was discussed and asked the landlord to get back to her by Thursday.
The landlord sent a reminder on Friday 13 May that the owner was coming in the weekend, the tenant replied that I do not give permission.
At the hearing the tenant said it was because she was away that weekend for her birthday and wanted to be present when other people were at her property.
The landlord said the owner had organised others to help and was not happy that this was postponed as he had few spare weekends.
A landlord can enter a premises when correct notice has been given to carry out necessary repairs, or maintenance. I have found that the garages should have been empty for the tenant to use.
The landlord claimed reimbursement of $9000.00 for the containers as she said that they are now useless. No invoice was provided and even if it was, I would dismiss the claim. The landlord still has the containers and is required by this order to remove his items by 1 December 2025, presumably to store in the containers.
This claim is dismissed.
There was no claim for damages filed by the landlord and no record of any updated application.
The landlord withdrew the further claims contained in the original application and all other claims are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297739 — Exemplary damages at 43 Morvern Crescent, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297739 — Exemplary damages at 43 Morvern Crescent, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions