What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371041 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 5371041?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371041?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13276919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371041 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 5371041?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371041?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13276919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371041 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371041 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent	$500.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Exemplary damages: Failure to keep records	$100.00	20. Taking those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay $100.00 in exemplary damages.
Net award	$600.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$600.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Anneke Greenwood and Sean Greenwood must pay [The tenant/s] $600.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Failure to appoint agent
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the RTA permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) RTA.
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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days. The landlord accepts that they reside outside New Zealand and had not appointed an agent. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, 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 that 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.
I consider the following to be relevant in coming to a decision on intention and the level of compensation. • These are experienced landlords. This is not the first time that they have tenanted these premises. • Operating a tenancy is a business. Landlords are deemed to be aware of the relevant legislation and the need to appoint an agent. • The tenancy lasted for approximately 20 months. • It is in the best interest of tenants generally to have a local agent.
In light of those factors, I consider an award of exemplary damages to be appropriate. Having said that , I consider an award at the lower end of the scale to be required. The tenant accepted that she was able to contact the landlord and that the landlord always attended to any concerns within a reasonable period. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $500.00 as exemplary damages. Rent records
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not kept records of rent paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) RTA.
The records should be contemporaneous and sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time to a request made under s.29(3) RTA by a tenant for a written statement of rent paid. As to the words “proper business records,” the tribunal noted in Kumar v Capper ,Auckland TT 1004/90, 12 March 1991 that the insertion of the word "business” indicates the requirement that the records be orderly, and of a high standard.
The tenant was to pay rent of $750.00 per week. The tenant says that she was naive and did not understand that paying rent of $1,500.00 fortnightly, twice a month, would result in an annual shortfall of rent paid of $3,000.00.
The landlord said that their rent records were such that they did not discover the rent arrears until they were preparing for the end of the tenancy. I record for the benefit of the parties that a landlords delay in claiming rent arrears, by itself, is not a waiver of a landlords right to recover the rent and does not prevent later enforcement of the obligation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The landlord’s records were such that they did not detect the shortfall. 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 that 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.
I consider the following to be relevant in coming to a decision on intention and the level of compensation. • These are experienced landlords. This is not the first time that they have tenanted these premises. • Operating a tenancy is a business. Landlords are deemed to be aware of the relevant legislation. • The tenancy lasted for approximately 20 months. • The failure to keep appropriate records has resulted in significant inconvenience to the tenant.
Taking those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay $100.00 in exemplary damages.
The tenant has applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this application. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371041 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent	$500.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Exemplary damages: Failure to keep records	$100.00	20. Taking those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay $100.00 in exemplary damages.
Net award	$600.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$600.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Anneke Greenwood and Sean Greenwood must pay [The tenant/s] $600.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Failure to appoint agent
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the RTA permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) RTA.
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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days. The landlord accepts that they reside outside New Zealand and had not appointed an agent. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, 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 that 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.
I consider the following to be relevant in coming to a decision on intention and the level of compensation. • These are experienced landlords. This is not the first time that they have tenanted these premises. • Operating a tenancy is a business. Landlords are deemed to be aware of the relevant legislation and the need to appoint an agent. • The tenancy lasted for approximately 20 months. • It is in the best interest of tenants generally to have a local agent.
In light of those factors, I consider an award of exemplary damages to be appropriate. Having said that , I consider an award at the lower end of the scale to be required. The tenant accepted that she was able to contact the landlord and that the landlord always attended to any concerns within a reasonable period. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $500.00 as exemplary damages. Rent records
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not kept records of rent paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) RTA.
The records should be contemporaneous and sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time to a request made under s.29(3) RTA by a tenant for a written statement of rent paid. As to the words “proper business records,” the tribunal noted in Kumar v Capper ,Auckland TT 1004/90, 12 March 1991 that the insertion of the word "business” indicates the requirement that the records be orderly, and of a high standard.
The tenant was to pay rent of $750.00 per week. The tenant says that she was naive and did not understand that paying rent of $1,500.00 fortnightly, twice a month, would result in an annual shortfall of rent paid of $3,000.00.
The landlord said that their rent records were such that they did not discover the rent arrears until they were preparing for the end of the tenancy. I record for the benefit of the parties that a landlords delay in claiming rent arrears, by itself, is not a waiver of a landlords right to recover the rent and does not prevent later enforcement of the obligation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The landlord’s records were such that they did not detect the shortfall. 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 that 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.
I consider the following to be relevant in coming to a decision on intention and the level of compensation. • These are experienced landlords. This is not the first time that they have tenanted these premises. • Operating a tenancy is a business. Landlords are deemed to be aware of the relevant legislation. • The tenancy lasted for approximately 20 months. • The failure to keep appropriate records has resulted in significant inconvenience to the tenant.
Taking those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay $100.00 in exemplary damages.
The tenant has applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this application. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371041 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371041 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions