What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358567 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5358567?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358567?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358567?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12900975-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358567 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5358567?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358567?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358567?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12900975-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 14 Plumpton Avenue, Wesley, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358567 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by Teams video. Ms Bacunawa represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and for general damages for the inconvenience he suffered not being able to take up the tenancy offered to him. Background
The landlord offers tenancies on a room-by-room basis to prisoners being released on bail, people deported from Australia known as ‘501s’ and others in difficult situations who would otherwise struggle to find accommodation.
Usually, the tenancies have to be in place before a release on bail is agreed to. That involves communication and co-operation between the landlord and various state agencies – the bail officials, the police on some occasions, and WINZ.
In this case a room was identified as suitable for the tenant to move into while on electronically monitored bail.
For various reasons the arrangement did not go ahead. The tenant did not sign the tenancy agreement, and a dispute developed between him and the property manager arranging the tenancy.
While arrangements were being made, WINZ advanced funds to the property manager. When the proposed tenancy did not eventuate, the tenant states that the landlord wanted to recover costs from the money advanced. However, the landlord did not deduct any monies, and all the funds advanced were paid back to WINZ.
The tenant considers that part of the funds advanced was for a bond. He states that the landlord never paid the bond to the Bond Centre and therefore committed an unlawful act. He also considers that he was unfairly disadvantaged when the tenancy did not proceed, which meant he had to couch surf. As he put it ‘they left me high and dry staying on my mate’s couch’.
The tenant sought a refund of his bond, and the other funds paid by WINZ, but he now accepts that the landlord has paid the funds back to WINZ.
Both parties addressed their positions in full at the hearing and I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal and the oral evidence I heard. Issues
There is one issue only before the Tribunal - can the Tribunal award the tenant compensation and exemplary damages on the facts of this case? Law Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party 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.
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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest. Discussion
The tenant accepted that he did not sign a tenancy agreement, nor did he take possession of the room that was initially offered to him. The reasons for that are varied and depend on the perspective of each party.
I need not record the reasons why the tenancy did not eventuate. The important fact legally is that the tenancy did not arise; it never commenced.
The money WINZ paid to the landlord company was to secure the room. It could not be considered rent and bond because the tenancy never started. At best, there were pre-tenancy discussions and negotiations, but a contract did not come into effect.
The tenant had reason to feel aggrieved. He was dealing with multiple authorities and any change to his proposed living situation required bail monitoring checks, police involvement, and interviews with neighbours to see whether they consented to him living in the proposed premises. Those processes all take time.
The landlord tried to find another room for him to rent but that did not eventuate. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
While the tenant considers that the landlord ‘terminated the lease’ of the first room suggested for him to rent, this was not a situation where a tenancy was terminated. The tenancy was proposed, but it never came into effect; no tenancy agreement was signed.
And while the delay by the landlord paying back the money advanced by WINZ concerned the tenant, he has suffered no loss as a result.
As I have noted, compensation follows a breach of the landlord’s responsibilities under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. With no confirmed tenancy in a legal sense, the landlord committed no breach. Likewise, it committed no breach that is a defined unlawful act so the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. It does not (cannot) award compensation for injured feelings or for the perception of ‘being taken advantage of’.
There has been no financial loss. Had the landlord not refunded the funds advanced by WINZ, the Tribunal would have ordered it to. But the funds have been retuned. That issue is now moot. Result
The application is dismissed. The discussions between the parties about the proposed room for the tenant to rent never resulted in a residential tenancy agreement coming into effect. The landlord committed no breaches of its statutory responsibilities. While the tenant’s experiences were frustrating, the Tribunal cannot award him compensation or exemplary damages in the absence of some objective breach by the landlord of its responsibilities under the RTA.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by Teams video. Ms Bacunawa represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and for general damages for the inconvenience he suffered not being able to take up the tenancy offered to him. Background
The landlord offers tenancies on a room-by-room basis to prisoners being released on bail, people deported from Australia known as ‘501s’ and others in difficult situations who would otherwise struggle to find accommodation.
Usually, the tenancies have to be in place before a release on bail is agreed to. That involves communication and co-operation between the landlord and various state agencies – the bail officials, the police on some occasions, and WINZ.
In this case a room was identified as suitable for the tenant to move into while on electronically monitored bail.
For various reasons the arrangement did not go ahead. The tenant did not sign the tenancy agreement, and a dispute developed between him and the property manager arranging the tenancy.
While arrangements were being made, WINZ advanced funds to the property manager. When the proposed tenancy did not eventuate, the tenant states that the landlord wanted to recover costs from the money advanced. However, the landlord did not deduct any monies, and all the funds advanced were paid back to WINZ.
The tenant considers that part of the funds advanced was for a bond. He states that the landlord never paid the bond to the Bond Centre and therefore committed an unlawful act. He also considers that he was unfairly disadvantaged when the tenancy did not proceed, which meant he had to couch surf. As he put it ‘they left me high and dry staying on my mate’s couch’.
The tenant sought a refund of his bond, and the other funds paid by WINZ, but he now accepts that the landlord has paid the funds back to WINZ.
Both parties addressed their positions in full at the hearing and I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal and the oral evidence I heard. Issues
There is one issue only before the Tribunal - can the Tribunal award the tenant compensation and exemplary damages on the facts of this case? Law Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party 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.
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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest. Discussion
The tenant accepted that he did not sign a tenancy agreement, nor did he take possession of the room that was initially offered to him. The reasons for that are varied and depend on the perspective of each party.
I need not record the reasons why the tenancy did not eventuate. The important fact legally is that the tenancy did not arise; it never commenced.
The money WINZ paid to the landlord company was to secure the room. It could not be considered rent and bond because the tenancy never started. At best, there were pre-tenancy discussions and negotiations, but a contract did not come into effect.
The tenant had reason to feel aggrieved. He was dealing with multiple authorities and any change to his proposed living situation required bail monitoring checks, police involvement, and interviews with neighbours to see whether they consented to him living in the proposed premises. Those processes all take time.
The landlord tried to find another room for him to rent but that did not eventuate. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
While the tenant considers that the landlord ‘terminated the lease’ of the first room suggested for him to rent, this was not a situation where a tenancy was terminated. The tenancy was proposed, but it never came into effect; no tenancy agreement was signed.
And while the delay by the landlord paying back the money advanced by WINZ concerned the tenant, he has suffered no loss as a result.
As I have noted, compensation follows a breach of the landlord’s responsibilities under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. With no confirmed tenancy in a legal sense, the landlord committed no breach. Likewise, it committed no breach that is a defined unlawful act so the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. It does not (cannot) award compensation for injured feelings or for the perception of ‘being taken advantage of’.
There has been no financial loss. Had the landlord not refunded the funds advanced by WINZ, the Tribunal would have ordered it to. But the funds have been retuned. That issue is now moot. Result
The application is dismissed. The discussions between the parties about the proposed room for the tenant to rent never resulted in a residential tenancy agreement coming into effect. The landlord committed no breaches of its statutory responsibilities. While the tenant’s experiences were frustrating, the Tribunal cannot award him compensation or exemplary damages in the absence of some objective breach by the landlord of its responsibilities under the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358567 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 14 Plumpton Avenue, Wesley, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358567 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 14 Plumpton Avenue, Wesley, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions