What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4621312?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties but

How much money was awarded in case 4621312?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $95.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621312?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9388655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4621312?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties but

How much money was awarded in case 4621312?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $95.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621312?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9388655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

515A Finlays Road, RD5, West Melton 7675 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4621312 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4621312 — net $145.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 June 2023 (consent	$500.00		Rent arrears to 7 June 2023 (consent
Replace damaged stove knobs	$95.94		Replace damaged stove knobs
Compensation for damage to vanity unit	$300.00		Compensation for damage to vanity unit
Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond		$750.00	Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond
Total award	$895.94	$750.00
Net award	$145.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$145.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties but no suppression orders are made as neither application is fully or mostly successful.
James Patrick Davidson and Chloe Skye Davidson to pay Dean Hardy and Linda Dawber $145.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Dean Hardy and Linda Dawber to pay James Patrick Davidson and Chloe Skye Davidson $1,854.06 immediately being the balance of the bond.
The landlord’s application for the replacement cost of rangehood light bulbs ($6.00) is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for compensation for grazing is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for compensation for breaches of their quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dawber represented the landlord, Mr Davidson the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and for compensation for alleged breaches on 2 occasions of their quiet enjoyment. Background
The tenancy started on 26 April 2022 and ended on 7 June 2023. It was a tenancy in a rural environment with the premise close to the home owned by and lived in by the landlord. The properties had a shared driveway.
The relationship between the parties apparently deteriorated after the tenants gave notice to end the tenancy.
The parties then made applications against each other and were unable to resolve the disputes via mediation. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond? •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation for alleged breaches of their quiet enjoyment? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for replacing stove knobs, range hood lights, grazing, and the replacement cost of a vanity unit? Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond?
The landlord accepts that she did not lodge the bond. She said she thought Mr Hardy had done that; he thought she had. The landlord said the failure to lodge the bond was an oversight.
The failure to lodge a bond within 23 working days of receiving it is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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.
Ms Dawber said the failure to lodge the bond was an oversight. She said, as experienced landlords, they had never failed to lodge bonds in the past.
While I accept that was the case initially, it was clear when the tenants made their application that the bond was at issue. The landlords should have immediately lodged the bond as they had neglected to do previously.
I find that the criteria for an award of exemplary damages are met. The failure to lodge the bond was against the tenants’ interests and the public interest; it caused the tenants concern; and it was intentional because even after the landlords became aware of the bond issue, they did not take any steps to rectify it.
I award the tenants exemplary damages of $750.00 for this unlawful act. Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation for alleged breaches of their quiet enjoyment?
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord 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. The tenants’ compensation claim is for a perceived breach of their quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (referred to above) District Court, confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenants allege that their quiet enjoyment was breached when, on 2 occasions, the landlord showed prospective tenants the outside of the premises.
Mr Davidson freely admitted that this was not a big issue for him.
Ms Dawber said she notified the tenants at short notice that tenants would be viewing the outside of the premises. She did not show the prospective tenants beyond a fenced area which they could easily view from the shared driveway.
Objectively viewed there was no breach of quiet enjoyment in this case. This was just a usual part of the landlord showing prospective tenants the exterior of the premises as the tenancy came to an end.
I dismiss the tenants’ application for compensation.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Mr Davidson accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $500.00. I have made a consent order for that amount. Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for replacing stove knobs, range hood lights, grazing, and the replacement cost of a vanity unit?
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that the knobs of the gas cooking top, which were new at the start of the tenancy, were unusable at the end. She said the original knobs had lasted 15 years.
Mr Davidson said the tenants noticed some problems with the knobs during the tenancy, but any issue was fair wear and tear.
When damage occurs during a tenancy it is for the tenant to prove that it was fair wear and tear in order to avoid liability.
Given that the stove knobs were new at the start of the tenancy, I find it probable that the tenants caused careless damage; the state of the knobs at the end of the tenancy was beyond fair wear and tear. I award the landlord the replacement cost of the knobs - $95.94.
The landlord sought the replacement cost of the range hood lights. The amount claimed is $6.00. That amount is de minimus. This claim is properly viewed as a matter of landlord maintenance. It is dismissed.
The landlord claimed the cost of grazing the tenants’ pet lambs and calves, 4 animals in total. She said the agreement reached was that in due course the tenants would provide the landlord with some meat.
This arrangement was not part of the tenancy agreement. The terms are vague (Mr Davidson referred to it as a casual arrangement). The arrangement did not work out and after 3-4 months 2 of the animals were sold and 2 were relocated.
There is no basis on which the Tribunal can award compensation due to the vague nature of the arrangement and the lack of objective evidence about the cost of grazing 4 animals for 3-4 months.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof.
The landlord has claimed the replacement cost of a bathroom vanity unit - $345.00 for a composite unit, $691.87 for plumbing costs, and $280.00 for building costs. The builder’s quotation has been provided by Mr Hardy, one of the landlords.
The tenant accepted that a very small area had been damaged. He produced quotes for repair costs. The quoted prices are $299.00 and $300.00.
Ms Dawber said she had been advised that the unit cannot be repaired, especially in a rental property. I queried what that meant. She said she thought that tenants would be less careful with a repaired unit that an owner would be.
The claim for the replacement cost of the unit is unrealistic. The unit is about 6 years old; the photographic evidence shows a small area of damage that is almost visually imperceptible; and the Tribunal has evidence that the unit can be repaired for at most $300.00.
The Tribunal must take depreciation and fair wear and tear into account for a unit that is 6 years old in residential tenancy premises. The unit has not been repaired.
I award the landlord compensation of $300.00. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $895.94 comprising rent arrears of $500.00 and compensation of $395.94.
The landlord will pay the tenants exemplary damages of $750.00 for the non- lodgement of the bond.
Offsetting one against the other, the landlord may retain $145.94 from the bond and must pay the balance of $1,854.06 to the tenants.
I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fees the parties paid. Each has been partly successful against the other. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order. I make no name suppression orders in this case as neither party has been wholly or mostly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4621312 — net $145.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 June 2023 (consent	$500.00		Rent arrears to 7 June 2023 (consent
Replace damaged stove knobs	$95.94		Replace damaged stove knobs
Compensation for damage to vanity unit	$300.00		Compensation for damage to vanity unit
Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond		$750.00	Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond
Total award	$895.94	$750.00
Net award	$145.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$145.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties but no suppression orders are made as neither application is fully or mostly successful.
James Patrick Davidson and Chloe Skye Davidson to pay Dean Hardy and Linda Dawber $145.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Dean Hardy and Linda Dawber to pay James Patrick Davidson and Chloe Skye Davidson $1,854.06 immediately being the balance of the bond.
The landlord’s application for the replacement cost of rangehood light bulbs ($6.00) is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for compensation for grazing is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for compensation for breaches of their quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dawber represented the landlord, Mr Davidson the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and for compensation for alleged breaches on 2 occasions of their quiet enjoyment. Background
The tenancy started on 26 April 2022 and ended on 7 June 2023. It was a tenancy in a rural environment with the premise close to the home owned by and lived in by the landlord. The properties had a shared driveway.
The relationship between the parties apparently deteriorated after the tenants gave notice to end the tenancy.
The parties then made applications against each other and were unable to resolve the disputes via mediation. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond? •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation for alleged breaches of their quiet enjoyment? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for replacing stove knobs, range hood lights, grazing, and the replacement cost of a vanity unit? Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond?
The landlord accepts that she did not lodge the bond. She said she thought Mr Hardy had done that; he thought she had. The landlord said the failure to lodge the bond was an oversight.
The failure to lodge a bond within 23 working days of receiving it is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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.
Ms Dawber said the failure to lodge the bond was an oversight. She said, as experienced landlords, they had never failed to lodge bonds in the past.
While I accept that was the case initially, it was clear when the tenants made their application that the bond was at issue. The landlords should have immediately lodged the bond as they had neglected to do previously.
I find that the criteria for an award of exemplary damages are met. The failure to lodge the bond was against the tenants’ interests and the public interest; it caused the tenants concern; and it was intentional because even after the landlords became aware of the bond issue, they did not take any steps to rectify it.
I award the tenants exemplary damages of $750.00 for this unlawful act. Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation for alleged breaches of their quiet enjoyment?
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord 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. The tenants’ compensation claim is for a perceived breach of their quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (referred to above) District Court, confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenants allege that their quiet enjoyment was breached when, on 2 occasions, the landlord showed prospective tenants the outside of the premises.
Mr Davidson freely admitted that this was not a big issue for him.
Ms Dawber said she notified the tenants at short notice that tenants would be viewing the outside of the premises. She did not show the prospective tenants beyond a fenced area which they could easily view from the shared driveway.
Objectively viewed there was no breach of quiet enjoyment in this case. This was just a usual part of the landlord showing prospective tenants the exterior of the premises as the tenancy came to an end.
I dismiss the tenants’ application for compensation.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Mr Davidson accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $500.00. I have made a consent order for that amount. Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for replacing stove knobs, range hood lights, grazing, and the replacement cost of a vanity unit?
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that the knobs of the gas cooking top, which were new at the start of the tenancy, were unusable at the end. She said the original knobs had lasted 15 years.
Mr Davidson said the tenants noticed some problems with the knobs during the tenancy, but any issue was fair wear and tear.
When damage occurs during a tenancy it is for the tenant to prove that it was fair wear and tear in order to avoid liability.
Given that the stove knobs were new at the start of the tenancy, I find it probable that the tenants caused careless damage; the state of the knobs at the end of the tenancy was beyond fair wear and tear. I award the landlord the replacement cost of the knobs - $95.94.
The landlord sought the replacement cost of the range hood lights. The amount claimed is $6.00. That amount is de minimus. This claim is properly viewed as a matter of landlord maintenance. It is dismissed.
The landlord claimed the cost of grazing the tenants’ pet lambs and calves, 4 animals in total. She said the agreement reached was that in due course the tenants would provide the landlord with some meat.
This arrangement was not part of the tenancy agreement. The terms are vague (Mr Davidson referred to it as a casual arrangement). The arrangement did not work out and after 3-4 months 2 of the animals were sold and 2 were relocated.
There is no basis on which the Tribunal can award compensation due to the vague nature of the arrangement and the lack of objective evidence about the cost of grazing 4 animals for 3-4 months.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof.
The landlord has claimed the replacement cost of a bathroom vanity unit - $345.00 for a composite unit, $691.87 for plumbing costs, and $280.00 for building costs. The builder’s quotation has been provided by Mr Hardy, one of the landlords.
The tenant accepted that a very small area had been damaged. He produced quotes for repair costs. The quoted prices are $299.00 and $300.00.
Ms Dawber said she had been advised that the unit cannot be repaired, especially in a rental property. I queried what that meant. She said she thought that tenants would be less careful with a repaired unit that an owner would be.
The claim for the replacement cost of the unit is unrealistic. The unit is about 6 years old; the photographic evidence shows a small area of damage that is almost visually imperceptible; and the Tribunal has evidence that the unit can be repaired for at most $300.00.
The Tribunal must take depreciation and fair wear and tear into account for a unit that is 6 years old in residential tenancy premises. The unit has not been repaired.
I award the landlord compensation of $300.00. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $895.94 comprising rent arrears of $500.00 and compensation of $395.94.
The landlord will pay the tenants exemplary damages of $750.00 for the non- lodgement of the bond.
Offsetting one against the other, the landlord may retain $145.94 from the bond and must pay the balance of $1,854.06 to the tenants.
I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fees the parties paid. Each has been partly successful against the other. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order. I make no name suppression orders in this case as neither party has been wholly or mostly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621312 — Rent arrears at 515A Finlays Road, RD5, West Melton 7675

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621312 — Rent arrears at 515A Finlays Road, RD5, West Melton 7675

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions