What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4632870?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4632870?

Compensation: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632870?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9208350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4632870?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4632870?

Compensation: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632870?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9208350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1236 New North Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4632870 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632870 — net $900.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$380.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: No tenancy agreement	$300.00	No tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: No receipts	$200.00	No receipts
Compensation	$20.44	Compensation
Net award	$900.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$900.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Tony Wu must pay Jinlong Zhai $900.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter. The landlord was represented by Wei Wang.
The tenant has applied for refund of bond, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears. Tenancy Agreement
Jinlong Zhai claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord acknowledged that there was no tenancy agreement. 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.
The landlord’s explanation for there being no tenancy agreement was because the tenant only wanted a short-term tenancy and therefore wanted the arrangement to be flexible. This is not an acceptable reason for the absence of a tenancy agreement.
The landlord acted intentionally by not ensuring that the agreement was in writing. The effect of the agreement not being in writing is that there was much uncertainty as to the nature and terms of the agreement.
On the evidence it seems that this is a boarding house tenancy as the tenant described the premises as comprising of eight rooms with ten people living there. The Residential Tenancies Act provides additional information required for a boarding house tenancy 1 .
The lack of a tenancy agreement had an impact on the tenant as he was not aware of his entitlement in relation to this tenancy. It is also in the public interest that landlords ensure that tenancy agreements are in writing as verbal agreements create uncertainty.
An award of $300.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. 1 Section 66C Rent payment
The tenant advised that there were some rent payments that were made in cash and some that were by bank transfer.
Jinlong Zhai claims the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord acknowledged that no receipt was given. 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.
The evidence of the landlord was that three weeks rent ($190.00 each week) and bond of $380.00 was paid in cash. No receipt was given for the cash payments. The explanation given by the landlord for not giving a receipt was that he was in hospital and someone else was collecting the rent.
The landlord’s explanation does not excuse the requirement to provide receipts for cash payment. The landlord, or his agent, intentionally did not provide receipts. This created uncertainty as to when and how much the tenant had paid both for rent and the bond. It is in the public interest for landlords to provide receipts for cash payments.
I consider an award of $200.00 is reasonable. Bond
The tenant claims refund of the bond paid. He says he paid $700.00 by cash. The first amount of $380.00 was paid on 25 November 2022. That amount was acknowledged by the landlord and does not appear in the rent summary.
The tenant said he paid a second amount of $320.00 on 24 March 2023. That payment was together with one weeks rent of $400.00.
The second payment of bond money was paid after the tenancy ended. It makes no sense for the tenant to pay extra bond money when he was seeking refund of the bond money he had already paid.
The landlord claims that the money paid on 24 March 2023 was related to another tenant who had paid their rent to the tenant in error.
As the landlord has acknowledged receiving bond money of $380.00 which has not been accounted for in relation to the rent payments, that money should be refunded to the tenant. There is insufficient evidence to support the refund of the $320.00 to the tenant which he says he had paid toward bond.
The bond of $380.00 is refunded to the tenant. Rent arrears
The landlord claims for rent arrears of $464.00. The landlord produced bank statement showing money received from the tenant. The rent summary does not include two payments made by the tenant to the landlord ($720.00 and $350.00).
The evidence of the tenant is that the $720.00 payment was for one weeks rent and bond of $320.00. He says the payment of $350.00 was in relation to the other tenant.
The evidence of the landlord is that both amounts relate to the other tenant.
On the evidence produced by the landlord I am not satisfied of the amount, if any, that the tenant owes for rent arrears.
I note that the rent summary claims rent to 19 March 2023 even though the tenant moved out on 18 March 2023. There is also a refund of $160.00 which again is claimed to relate to the other tenant, but the landlord says was refunded in error and therefore owed by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Because Tony Wu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632870 — net $900.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$380.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: No tenancy agreement	$300.00	No tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: No receipts	$200.00	No receipts
Compensation	$20.44	Compensation
Net award	$900.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$900.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Tony Wu must pay Jinlong Zhai $900.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter. The landlord was represented by Wei Wang.
The tenant has applied for refund of bond, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears. Tenancy Agreement
Jinlong Zhai claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord acknowledged that there was no tenancy agreement. 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.
The landlord’s explanation for there being no tenancy agreement was because the tenant only wanted a short-term tenancy and therefore wanted the arrangement to be flexible. This is not an acceptable reason for the absence of a tenancy agreement.
The landlord acted intentionally by not ensuring that the agreement was in writing. The effect of the agreement not being in writing is that there was much uncertainty as to the nature and terms of the agreement.
On the evidence it seems that this is a boarding house tenancy as the tenant described the premises as comprising of eight rooms with ten people living there. The Residential Tenancies Act provides additional information required for a boarding house tenancy 1 .
The lack of a tenancy agreement had an impact on the tenant as he was not aware of his entitlement in relation to this tenancy. It is also in the public interest that landlords ensure that tenancy agreements are in writing as verbal agreements create uncertainty.
An award of $300.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. 1 Section 66C Rent payment
The tenant advised that there were some rent payments that were made in cash and some that were by bank transfer.
Jinlong Zhai claims the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord acknowledged that no receipt was given. 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.
The evidence of the landlord was that three weeks rent ($190.00 each week) and bond of $380.00 was paid in cash. No receipt was given for the cash payments. The explanation given by the landlord for not giving a receipt was that he was in hospital and someone else was collecting the rent.
The landlord’s explanation does not excuse the requirement to provide receipts for cash payment. The landlord, or his agent, intentionally did not provide receipts. This created uncertainty as to when and how much the tenant had paid both for rent and the bond. It is in the public interest for landlords to provide receipts for cash payments.
I consider an award of $200.00 is reasonable. Bond
The tenant claims refund of the bond paid. He says he paid $700.00 by cash. The first amount of $380.00 was paid on 25 November 2022. That amount was acknowledged by the landlord and does not appear in the rent summary.
The tenant said he paid a second amount of $320.00 on 24 March 2023. That payment was together with one weeks rent of $400.00.
The second payment of bond money was paid after the tenancy ended. It makes no sense for the tenant to pay extra bond money when he was seeking refund of the bond money he had already paid.
The landlord claims that the money paid on 24 March 2023 was related to another tenant who had paid their rent to the tenant in error.
As the landlord has acknowledged receiving bond money of $380.00 which has not been accounted for in relation to the rent payments, that money should be refunded to the tenant. There is insufficient evidence to support the refund of the $320.00 to the tenant which he says he had paid toward bond.
The bond of $380.00 is refunded to the tenant. Rent arrears
The landlord claims for rent arrears of $464.00. The landlord produced bank statement showing money received from the tenant. The rent summary does not include two payments made by the tenant to the landlord ($720.00 and $350.00).
The evidence of the tenant is that the $720.00 payment was for one weeks rent and bond of $320.00. He says the payment of $350.00 was in relation to the other tenant.
The evidence of the landlord is that both amounts relate to the other tenant.
On the evidence produced by the landlord I am not satisfied of the amount, if any, that the tenant owes for rent arrears.
I note that the rent summary claims rent to 19 March 2023 even though the tenant moved out on 18 March 2023. There is also a refund of $160.00 which again is claimed to relate to the other tenant, but the landlord says was refunded in error and therefore owed by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Because Tony Wu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632870 — Exemplary damages at 1236 New North Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632870 — Exemplary damages at 1236 New North Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions