What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405246 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for suppression of the names and identifying details of the

How much money was awarded in case 5405246?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405246?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405246?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13249455-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405246 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for suppression of the names and identifying details of the

How much money was awarded in case 5405246?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405246?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405246?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13249455-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Elsie Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405246 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405246 — net $2,303.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond	$2,025.00	Refund of bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,303.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,303.00

Order

There is an order for suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenants.
Smitha Jose and Praveen Mathew must immediately pay [the tenants] the sum of $2,303.00 as calculated in the table below:
The tenants’ claims regarding quiet enjoyment and failure to maintain the premises are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely. Although the landlords were late attending because of technical difficulties, the matters covered in their absence were reviewed and they were given an opportunity to reply.
The tenants have applied for: a. refund of bond b. exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, breach of quiet enjoyment and failure to maintain.
The tenants’ application covered a tenancy agreement that ran from 17 August 2023 to 12 November 2025.
At the start of the tenancy the landlord drew up a tenancy agreement. The tenants produced a copy of the agreement, which they say that they returned to the landlords via WhatsApp. The landlords deny receiving it.
The agreement provided for rent of $600 and a bond payment of $2,025. The tenants said that there was an error with the rent amount because it should have been $675. There is no dispute that the weekly rent was $675 and that is what they paid.
The landlords have raised issues over cleaning and damage to the premises at the end of the tenancy, but they have not filed any application.

Did the tenants pay a bond?

The tenants say that they paid a bond of $2,025, being three weeks’ rent, which has not been lodged.
The landlords deny that the tenants paid a bond.
The tenants produced a copy of their bank statement showing that on 16 August 2023 they paid the landlords $2,700. The following week on 23 August 2023 they paid a further week’s rent of $675.
The landlord does not dispute that the tenants paid $2,700 on 16 August 2023 and that they paid weekly rent of $675 from 23 August until the end of the tenancy. They agree that $2,025 should be reimbursed for overpaid rent.
However, the landlords dispute that the money paid on 16 August included a bond. They say that the payment was three weeks in advance plus one week’s rent. They rely on the tenant’s notation in their bank statement where they have referred to the bank transfer as “rent in advance”.
That interpretation means that in fact the tenants paid four weeks in advance at the start of the tenancy. Under section 23(1) a landlord must not require rent to be paid more than two weeks in advance.
For the following reasons, I do not accept that the landlord believed that the payment of $2,700 made on 16 August 2023 was purely rent in advance: a. the tenancy agreement prepared by the landlord shows a bond $2,025; b. weekly payments of $675 continued throughout the tenancy; c. at the end of the tenancy, the landlord declined to refund the $2,025 overpayment on the basis that there was a dispute about compensation. In other words, the landlord has treated this money as a bond.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. There is no application by the landlord. Therefore, the bond of $2,025 must be refunded to the tenant.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged at the Bond Centre.
Under section 19(1)(b) the landlord must lodge the bond within 23 working days of receipt, and failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500 may be ordered. See Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the landlords 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.
The landlords say that they are inexperienced landlords. When they decided to charge money in exchange for the right to occupy their premises, they entered into a commercial arrangement to which the rights and responsibilities of the Residential Tenancies Act apply. They knew that they had been paid a bond and knew that they had not lodged it. It was therefore an intentional act.
Once the bond was in dispute, it would have been stressful for the tenants to find that the bond was not lodged. There is a public interest in reminding this landlord and others of the importance of complying with their obligations under the Act. I have decided that a modest order of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case and order $250.

Did the landlords comply with section 45?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The obligations under section 45 include providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that there were rats at the property. The landlords told them to buy some poison. The tenants did not want to risk the health of their children. They got some traps. The tenants say that the landlords should have got pest control to exterminate the rates.
The presence of rats on a property does not automatically mean that a landlord has breached any responsibility. It is reasonable to try usual extermination methods such as poison or traps. If that is not successful, then it may be that the rats are entering the property through a hole or gap in the wall or roof that needs to be repaired, but in the present case there is no evidence that the presence of rats was because the landlord had failed to comply any obligation.
This claim is dismissed.

Has there been a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants say that when the property went on the market, their quiet enjoyment was disturbed because of the viewings.
There were between 5 and 10 viewings in total over ‘a period of time’. Some weeks there were 2 in one week. In some instances they were at short notice. The tenants were also asked to move a sound system.
The landlord says that they always gave at least 5 days’ notice, they always checked that it was convenient and always got consent.
Section 38 says that the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord and 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
Section 48 says that a landlord may enter the property: a. with the tenant’s consent; b. in an emergency, or c. after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.
Section 48(3)(b) says that with the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective purchasers. Section 48(3A) says that the tenant may not withhold his or her consent unreasonably; and may make the consent subject to any reasonable condition.
The Act does not specify the amount of notice that should be given. The main point is that consent is required and consent should not be unreasonably withheld.
I accept that it may be inconvenient having prospective tenants viewing the premises, but there is no evidence that the tenants did not consent to the viewings or that any pressure was applied. I do not find that the landlord has behaved unreasonably or breached any obligation under section 38 or section 48.
This claim is dismissed.
Because the tenant has been substantially successful, I have decided to order reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants are also entitled to name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405246 — net $2,303.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond	$2,025.00	Refund of bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,303.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,303.00

Order

There is an order for suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenants.
Smitha Jose and Praveen Mathew must immediately pay [the tenants] the sum of $2,303.00 as calculated in the table below:
The tenants’ claims regarding quiet enjoyment and failure to maintain the premises are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely. Although the landlords were late attending because of technical difficulties, the matters covered in their absence were reviewed and they were given an opportunity to reply.
The tenants have applied for: a. refund of bond b. exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, breach of quiet enjoyment and failure to maintain.
The tenants’ application covered a tenancy agreement that ran from 17 August 2023 to 12 November 2025.
At the start of the tenancy the landlord drew up a tenancy agreement. The tenants produced a copy of the agreement, which they say that they returned to the landlords via WhatsApp. The landlords deny receiving it.
The agreement provided for rent of $600 and a bond payment of $2,025. The tenants said that there was an error with the rent amount because it should have been $675. There is no dispute that the weekly rent was $675 and that is what they paid.
The landlords have raised issues over cleaning and damage to the premises at the end of the tenancy, but they have not filed any application.

Did the tenants pay a bond?

The tenants say that they paid a bond of $2,025, being three weeks’ rent, which has not been lodged.
The landlords deny that the tenants paid a bond.
The tenants produced a copy of their bank statement showing that on 16 August 2023 they paid the landlords $2,700. The following week on 23 August 2023 they paid a further week’s rent of $675.
The landlord does not dispute that the tenants paid $2,700 on 16 August 2023 and that they paid weekly rent of $675 from 23 August until the end of the tenancy. They agree that $2,025 should be reimbursed for overpaid rent.
However, the landlords dispute that the money paid on 16 August included a bond. They say that the payment was three weeks in advance plus one week’s rent. They rely on the tenant’s notation in their bank statement where they have referred to the bank transfer as “rent in advance”.
That interpretation means that in fact the tenants paid four weeks in advance at the start of the tenancy. Under section 23(1) a landlord must not require rent to be paid more than two weeks in advance.
For the following reasons, I do not accept that the landlord believed that the payment of $2,700 made on 16 August 2023 was purely rent in advance: a. the tenancy agreement prepared by the landlord shows a bond $2,025; b. weekly payments of $675 continued throughout the tenancy; c. at the end of the tenancy, the landlord declined to refund the $2,025 overpayment on the basis that there was a dispute about compensation. In other words, the landlord has treated this money as a bond.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. There is no application by the landlord. Therefore, the bond of $2,025 must be refunded to the tenant.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged at the Bond Centre.
Under section 19(1)(b) the landlord must lodge the bond within 23 working days of receipt, and failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500 may be ordered. See Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the landlords 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.
The landlords say that they are inexperienced landlords. When they decided to charge money in exchange for the right to occupy their premises, they entered into a commercial arrangement to which the rights and responsibilities of the Residential Tenancies Act apply. They knew that they had been paid a bond and knew that they had not lodged it. It was therefore an intentional act.
Once the bond was in dispute, it would have been stressful for the tenants to find that the bond was not lodged. There is a public interest in reminding this landlord and others of the importance of complying with their obligations under the Act. I have decided that a modest order of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case and order $250.

Did the landlords comply with section 45?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The obligations under section 45 include providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that there were rats at the property. The landlords told them to buy some poison. The tenants did not want to risk the health of their children. They got some traps. The tenants say that the landlords should have got pest control to exterminate the rates.
The presence of rats on a property does not automatically mean that a landlord has breached any responsibility. It is reasonable to try usual extermination methods such as poison or traps. If that is not successful, then it may be that the rats are entering the property through a hole or gap in the wall or roof that needs to be repaired, but in the present case there is no evidence that the presence of rats was because the landlord had failed to comply any obligation.
This claim is dismissed.

Has there been a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants say that when the property went on the market, their quiet enjoyment was disturbed because of the viewings.
There were between 5 and 10 viewings in total over ‘a period of time’. Some weeks there were 2 in one week. In some instances they were at short notice. The tenants were also asked to move a sound system.
The landlord says that they always gave at least 5 days’ notice, they always checked that it was convenient and always got consent.
Section 38 says that the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord and 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
Section 48 says that a landlord may enter the property: a. with the tenant’s consent; b. in an emergency, or c. after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.
Section 48(3)(b) says that with the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective purchasers. Section 48(3A) says that the tenant may not withhold his or her consent unreasonably; and may make the consent subject to any reasonable condition.
The Act does not specify the amount of notice that should be given. The main point is that consent is required and consent should not be unreasonably withheld.
I accept that it may be inconvenient having prospective tenants viewing the premises, but there is no evidence that the tenants did not consent to the viewings or that any pressure was applied. I do not find that the landlord has behaved unreasonably or breached any obligation under section 38 or section 48.
This claim is dismissed.
Because the tenant has been substantially successful, I have decided to order reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants are also entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405246 — Exemplary damages at 4 Elsie Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405246 — Exemplary damages at 4 Elsie Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants pay a bond?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Did the landlords comply with section 45?

Has there been a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants pay a bond?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Did the landlords comply with section 45?

Has there been a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions