What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4424624?

The tribunal order states: Scotty Barbarich is to pay Charmaine Maree Breitmeyer $2,460.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4424624?

Immediately, Being: $1,960.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4424624?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4424624?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073339-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4424624?

The tribunal order states: Scotty Barbarich is to pay Charmaine Maree Breitmeyer $2,460.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4424624?

Immediately, Being: $1,960.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4424624?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4424624?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073339-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 Dalmeny Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4424624 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4424624. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately, being	$1,960.00		immediately, being

Order

Scotty Barbarich is to pay Charmaine Maree Breitmeyer $2,460.00 immediately, being $1,960.00 (Tenant’s bond) plus $500 in exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond.

Reasons

The Tenant attended the hearing. There have been several adjournments. The first adjournment was granted at the Landlord’s request, as he allegedly had severe cardiovascular issues which meant he could not attend. This request was made on the morning of the hearing. The Tribunal had asked him to provide a medical certificate or evidence to show he was indisposed. He has not done so. The Landlord requested an adjournment of this hearing, moments before the hearing was scheduled to begin. That last-minute request was not granted. The Landlord has failed to provide a phone number to be called on.
The Tenant says contrary to the Landlord’s claims of severe health issues, he remains very busy with his work, relocating container homes and managing other tenancies. She refers to his Facebook posts, which I have not seen.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I find it more likely than not the case that the Landlord is not wanting to show up to the hearing because it is likely he will be held accountable for wrongdoing in connection with this tenancy. Informing this view is the fact that an earlier hearing, which the Landlord did attend with his spokesperson, he could not disprove that he had failed to lodge the Tenant’s bond and did not appear to have any lawful explanation for this failure. I put it to him that he manages other tenancies and should know better, and he appeared to acknowledge this. He explained that there were issues evident from the first day of the tenancy and he thought it would have been inefficient to lodge the bond if, as he had concluded, the tenancy was not going to survive.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The Landlord has filed evidence in response to the Tenant’s claim, but it is difficult to make sense of without the Landlord being physically present to explain its evidence and make submissions.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 attended the hearing to explain and set out its counterclaim, the bond is refunded in full to the Tenant.
The Tenant 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 Tenant has explained how, after moving to the premises, she had concerns about its condition; there were pests, plumbing issues and she learnt her bond had not been lodged.
She said she did not want to go into much detail concerning her connection with the Landlord, but the thrust of her evidence was that the Landlord is gang- affiliated and that she was going out with a man who the Landlord introduced her to, who was an active gang member. This man, it is alleged, had issues with the Tenant’s daughter, and this led to damage occurring at the tenancy. In the end, the Landlord was trying to get the Tenant out of the premises, and the Tenant was wanting to remain. The Landlord was successful at removing the Tenant, but it appears he did not follow a lawful process. I am not being asked to look into that issue, however, and I do not have sufficient, hard evidence to make findings.
Clearly there is more going on behind the scenes, more than either party would like me to know.
Nevertheless, I find the Landlord has 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 Landlord failed to lodge the bond and knew or ought to have known that was against the law. The Landlord has other tenancies and has, in this case, decided he knows better than the law.
The Tenant has been adversely affected by the Landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, as she has been concerned by the Landlord having control over her money and she feels as though the Landlord used his control over the bond to force her out of the tenancy. I cannot see any clear evidence to suggest this, or to show her subjective view is reasonable when objectively viewed. I accept the Landlord’s evidence that he did not lodge the bond because he thought the tenancy was going to end, the parties in dispute within the week the Tenant took possession of the premises. However, this led to the Landlord having more effective control over the Tenant’s monies, which, I accept, will have led her to feel disadvantaged and in a weaker bargaining position, compromising her resolve to assert her legal rights. I consider the Landlord knew or ought to have known his control of the bon monies would have this effect.
The public interest is safeguarded by insuring Landlord’s are deterred from conducting themselves in this way; controlling a Tenant and compromising their decision-making capabilities by holding onto the bond.
In these circumstances, I conclude exemplary damages of $500 is reasonable. Corrigendum
I have amended the Respondent’s name, as it was misspelt on the previous order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4424624. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately, being	$1,960.00		immediately, being

Order

Scotty Barbarich is to pay Charmaine Maree Breitmeyer $2,460.00 immediately, being $1,960.00 (Tenant’s bond) plus $500 in exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond.

Reasons

The Tenant attended the hearing. There have been several adjournments. The first adjournment was granted at the Landlord’s request, as he allegedly had severe cardiovascular issues which meant he could not attend. This request was made on the morning of the hearing. The Tribunal had asked him to provide a medical certificate or evidence to show he was indisposed. He has not done so. The Landlord requested an adjournment of this hearing, moments before the hearing was scheduled to begin. That last-minute request was not granted. The Landlord has failed to provide a phone number to be called on.
The Tenant says contrary to the Landlord’s claims of severe health issues, he remains very busy with his work, relocating container homes and managing other tenancies. She refers to his Facebook posts, which I have not seen.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I find it more likely than not the case that the Landlord is not wanting to show up to the hearing because it is likely he will be held accountable for wrongdoing in connection with this tenancy. Informing this view is the fact that an earlier hearing, which the Landlord did attend with his spokesperson, he could not disprove that he had failed to lodge the Tenant’s bond and did not appear to have any lawful explanation for this failure. I put it to him that he manages other tenancies and should know better, and he appeared to acknowledge this. He explained that there were issues evident from the first day of the tenancy and he thought it would have been inefficient to lodge the bond if, as he had concluded, the tenancy was not going to survive.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The Landlord has filed evidence in response to the Tenant’s claim, but it is difficult to make sense of without the Landlord being physically present to explain its evidence and make submissions.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 attended the hearing to explain and set out its counterclaim, the bond is refunded in full to the Tenant.
The Tenant 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 Tenant has explained how, after moving to the premises, she had concerns about its condition; there were pests, plumbing issues and she learnt her bond had not been lodged.
She said she did not want to go into much detail concerning her connection with the Landlord, but the thrust of her evidence was that the Landlord is gang- affiliated and that she was going out with a man who the Landlord introduced her to, who was an active gang member. This man, it is alleged, had issues with the Tenant’s daughter, and this led to damage occurring at the tenancy. In the end, the Landlord was trying to get the Tenant out of the premises, and the Tenant was wanting to remain. The Landlord was successful at removing the Tenant, but it appears he did not follow a lawful process. I am not being asked to look into that issue, however, and I do not have sufficient, hard evidence to make findings.
Clearly there is more going on behind the scenes, more than either party would like me to know.
Nevertheless, I find the Landlord has 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 Landlord failed to lodge the bond and knew or ought to have known that was against the law. The Landlord has other tenancies and has, in this case, decided he knows better than the law.
The Tenant has been adversely affected by the Landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, as she has been concerned by the Landlord having control over her money and she feels as though the Landlord used his control over the bond to force her out of the tenancy. I cannot see any clear evidence to suggest this, or to show her subjective view is reasonable when objectively viewed. I accept the Landlord’s evidence that he did not lodge the bond because he thought the tenancy was going to end, the parties in dispute within the week the Tenant took possession of the premises. However, this led to the Landlord having more effective control over the Tenant’s monies, which, I accept, will have led her to feel disadvantaged and in a weaker bargaining position, compromising her resolve to assert her legal rights. I consider the Landlord knew or ought to have known his control of the bon monies would have this effect.
The public interest is safeguarded by insuring Landlord’s are deterred from conducting themselves in this way; controlling a Tenant and compromising their decision-making capabilities by holding onto the bond.
In these circumstances, I conclude exemplary damages of $500 is reasonable. Corrigendum
I have amended the Respondent’s name, as it was misspelt on the previous order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4424624 — Leaks at 53 Dalmeny Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4424624 — Leaks at 53 Dalmeny Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

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