What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4532452?

The tribunal order states: Waipa Homes Limited Jing Xia must pay Tania Adelaide Aii $5,070.44

How much money was awarded in case 4532452?

Compensation: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532452?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9772506-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4532452?

The tribunal order states: Waipa Homes Limited Jing Xia must pay Tania Adelaide Aii $5,070.44

How much money was awarded in case 4532452?

Compensation: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532452?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9772506-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

321 Albany Highway, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4532452 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4532452 — net $5,070.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond	$1,000.00	Bond
Compensation	$850.00	Compensation
Bond refund	$3,200.00	Bond refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,070.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,070.44

Order

Waipa Homes Limited Jing Xia must pay Tania Adelaide Aii $5,070.44 immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant is now living in Australia, so approval was granted ahead of the hearing for her to attend by telephone.
One hour before the hearing commenced the landlord (Jing Xia) emailed the Tribunal advising that she was unable to attend the hearing as she had COVID. She provided a photograph of a positive COVID test.
The late notice from the tenant and the coincidence of a positive test for COVID which cannot be evidentially attributed to the landlord raised doubt as to whether the landlord was unable to attend the hearing. Therefore, the landlord was advised that she could attend the hearing by telephone and the hearing proceeded in that way.
This matter had been first heard on 14 March 2023 by telephone before another Adjudicator. The hearing was adjourned to an in-person hearing. The Tribunal also directed that the Bond Centre was to continue to hold the bond (6465107- 006) of $3,200.00.
A further hearing was held on 10 July 2023. The tenant attended that hearing in person and the landlord sought an adjournment but ended up attending the hearing by telephone. That hearing was adjourned because I determined that the hearing needed to be in person with both the landlord and the tenant present. Also, it was directed that further evidence was required and a list was provided in the order for both the landlord and the tenant to produce various documents. Landlord’s application
The landlord applied in December 2022 for termination of the tenancy and for rent arrears.
When this matter was before the Tribunal on 14 March 2023 it was recorded that the tenant had vacated the tenancy on 30 December 2022. This means that an order terminating the tenancy is not required therefore the landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.
The tenancy agreement signed by the landlord on 16 August 2022 records that this is a fixed term tenancy due to end on 24 August 2023. As it was a fixed tenancy the landlord could not give notice to end it. At today’s hearing the landlord said that she gave 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy and that notice was served on 31 October 2022. The reason for the notice was that the landlord wanted to sell the premises, but the tenant’s evidence is that new tenants moved in when she moved out.
The tenant also claims that gang members attended at the premises the day before she vacated, and she believes that the landlord sent them to intimidate her. The landlord denies any involvement in sending these people to the premises. The circumstances around the ending of this tenancy are unsatisfactory and I tend to believe the tenant because this landlord should know that notice could not be given when it was.
The landlord also applied for rent arrears. The rent summary produced at the earlier hearing was inadequate. In the order dated 10 July 2023 it was directed that the landlord file documents including an adequate rent summary. The landlord claims that she filed documents around September 2022 but there are none on the Tribunal file.
Given the lack of evidence I am unable to make an order for rent arrears in favour of the landlord. That claim is also dismissed. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for refund of the bond money, compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond money within 23 working days, not providing working smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy and not providing a working oven.
Tania Adelaide Aii 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 did not lodge the bond within 23 working days. The landlord also did not lodge the bond in the tenant’s name. The name of the landlord given to the Bond Centre was Xiaojing Huang. Apparently, this is the owner of the premises and Jing Xia’s sister. Jing Xia said she gave the bond money to her sister to lodge it. The name of the tenant given to the Bond Centre was Navig8- 20 Limited. That is a company where the Director is Jing Xia’s business partner. The bond was lodged on 9 November 2022, which is more than 23 working days after the tenancy commenced. There was no evidence produced to show that the bond was paid late by the tenant, and it appears that the landlord only lodged the bond because the tenant had served a 14-day notice on her. 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.
While the Tribunal order dated 14 March 2023 directed that the Bond Centre was to continue to hold the bond of $3,200.00 this did not happen. On 28 April 2023 the Bond Centre released the bond money to the named tenant being the company of Jing Xia’s business partner. At the hearing the landlord said that the bond was released to the landlord due to rent arrears, but I note that the rent summary originally lodged by the landlord did not include that money.
The landlord knew that the bond was to remain with the Bond Centre but proceeded to request release of the disputed bond money. The landlord also knew that the tenant was not Navig8-20 Limited, but it was from that company that an email was sent to the Bond Centre authorising release of the bond.
The bond money has not been returned to the tenant and was not applied to the rent arrears owed. The bond money was not only lodged late but it was lodged against a company rather than the tenant named in the tenancy agreement. This failure by the landlord has impacted on the tenant and it is in the public interest that bond money is lodged on time, is lodged in the name of the tenant and is not requested to be released when the Tribunal has ordered that it not be.
I consider that an award of $1,000.00 is a reasonable amount in the circumstances.
I also award refund of the bond money to the tenant as the landlord has not established that she has a lawful claim to that money.
The tenant claims compensation in relation to the landlord not providing a working oven and working smoke alarms. She served a 14-day notice on the landlord in relation to these, as well as the bond money and a letterbox.
The tenant was not able to provide much evidence to support these claims, however I accept her evidence that the oven did not work. I note that the landlord did not dispute this. I award compensation equivalent to one week’s rent being $850.00.
As the tenant has had significant success with her application, I award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4532452 — net $5,070.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond	$1,000.00	Bond
Compensation	$850.00	Compensation
Bond refund	$3,200.00	Bond refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,070.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,070.44

Order

Waipa Homes Limited Jing Xia must pay Tania Adelaide Aii $5,070.44 immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant is now living in Australia, so approval was granted ahead of the hearing for her to attend by telephone.
One hour before the hearing commenced the landlord (Jing Xia) emailed the Tribunal advising that she was unable to attend the hearing as she had COVID. She provided a photograph of a positive COVID test.
The late notice from the tenant and the coincidence of a positive test for COVID which cannot be evidentially attributed to the landlord raised doubt as to whether the landlord was unable to attend the hearing. Therefore, the landlord was advised that she could attend the hearing by telephone and the hearing proceeded in that way.
This matter had been first heard on 14 March 2023 by telephone before another Adjudicator. The hearing was adjourned to an in-person hearing. The Tribunal also directed that the Bond Centre was to continue to hold the bond (6465107- 006) of $3,200.00.
A further hearing was held on 10 July 2023. The tenant attended that hearing in person and the landlord sought an adjournment but ended up attending the hearing by telephone. That hearing was adjourned because I determined that the hearing needed to be in person with both the landlord and the tenant present. Also, it was directed that further evidence was required and a list was provided in the order for both the landlord and the tenant to produce various documents. Landlord’s application
The landlord applied in December 2022 for termination of the tenancy and for rent arrears.
When this matter was before the Tribunal on 14 March 2023 it was recorded that the tenant had vacated the tenancy on 30 December 2022. This means that an order terminating the tenancy is not required therefore the landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.
The tenancy agreement signed by the landlord on 16 August 2022 records that this is a fixed term tenancy due to end on 24 August 2023. As it was a fixed tenancy the landlord could not give notice to end it. At today’s hearing the landlord said that she gave 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy and that notice was served on 31 October 2022. The reason for the notice was that the landlord wanted to sell the premises, but the tenant’s evidence is that new tenants moved in when she moved out.
The tenant also claims that gang members attended at the premises the day before she vacated, and she believes that the landlord sent them to intimidate her. The landlord denies any involvement in sending these people to the premises. The circumstances around the ending of this tenancy are unsatisfactory and I tend to believe the tenant because this landlord should know that notice could not be given when it was.
The landlord also applied for rent arrears. The rent summary produced at the earlier hearing was inadequate. In the order dated 10 July 2023 it was directed that the landlord file documents including an adequate rent summary. The landlord claims that she filed documents around September 2022 but there are none on the Tribunal file.
Given the lack of evidence I am unable to make an order for rent arrears in favour of the landlord. That claim is also dismissed. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for refund of the bond money, compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond money within 23 working days, not providing working smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy and not providing a working oven.
Tania Adelaide Aii 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 did not lodge the bond within 23 working days. The landlord also did not lodge the bond in the tenant’s name. The name of the landlord given to the Bond Centre was Xiaojing Huang. Apparently, this is the owner of the premises and Jing Xia’s sister. Jing Xia said she gave the bond money to her sister to lodge it. The name of the tenant given to the Bond Centre was Navig8- 20 Limited. That is a company where the Director is Jing Xia’s business partner. The bond was lodged on 9 November 2022, which is more than 23 working days after the tenancy commenced. There was no evidence produced to show that the bond was paid late by the tenant, and it appears that the landlord only lodged the bond because the tenant had served a 14-day notice on her. 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.
While the Tribunal order dated 14 March 2023 directed that the Bond Centre was to continue to hold the bond of $3,200.00 this did not happen. On 28 April 2023 the Bond Centre released the bond money to the named tenant being the company of Jing Xia’s business partner. At the hearing the landlord said that the bond was released to the landlord due to rent arrears, but I note that the rent summary originally lodged by the landlord did not include that money.
The landlord knew that the bond was to remain with the Bond Centre but proceeded to request release of the disputed bond money. The landlord also knew that the tenant was not Navig8-20 Limited, but it was from that company that an email was sent to the Bond Centre authorising release of the bond.
The bond money has not been returned to the tenant and was not applied to the rent arrears owed. The bond money was not only lodged late but it was lodged against a company rather than the tenant named in the tenancy agreement. This failure by the landlord has impacted on the tenant and it is in the public interest that bond money is lodged on time, is lodged in the name of the tenant and is not requested to be released when the Tribunal has ordered that it not be.
I consider that an award of $1,000.00 is a reasonable amount in the circumstances.
I also award refund of the bond money to the tenant as the landlord has not established that she has a lawful claim to that money.
The tenant claims compensation in relation to the landlord not providing a working oven and working smoke alarms. She served a 14-day notice on the landlord in relation to these, as well as the bond money and a letterbox.
The tenant was not able to provide much evidence to support these claims, however I accept her evidence that the oven did not work. I note that the landlord did not dispute this. I award compensation equivalent to one week’s rent being $850.00.
As the tenant has had significant success with her application, I award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532452 — Exemplary damages at 321 Albany Highway, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532452 — Exemplary damages at 321 Albany Highway, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions