What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4668271?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4668271?

Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4668271?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4668271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9365968-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4668271?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4668271?

Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4668271?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4668271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9365968-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 4 Waikaukau Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4668271 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4668271 — net $470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: terminate without grounds	$450.00	terminate without grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$470.44
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$470.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5925377-002) to Marlene Stuart and Tom Bieder Atkinson immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.
Michelle Property Management Limited As Agent For Paul Manning must pay Marlene Stuart and Tom Bieder Atkinson $470.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 17 December 2019 and ended on 3 July 2023.
At the commencement of the hearing the landlord claimed that there was no tenancy agreement and Mr Atkinson was not a tenant. With his application the tenant produced a tenancy agreement showing that the tenancy commenced on 17 December 2019 for weekly rent of $450.00. The agent for the landlord at the time was Waitakere Real Estate Ltd. The tenancy was periodic.
Since the commencement of the tenancy the owner has changed the agent representing him. However, the tenancy agreement continues to apply to this tenancy.
The applications filed by the parties did not include Marlene Stuart as a tenant, but she is clearly a tenant on the tenancy agreement and no document was produced to show that she ceased being a tenant. The bond is held at the Bond Centre in both tenants’ names. Ms Stuart also attended the hearing. Her name is therefore included in this order.
The tenant applied for compensation in relation to not being able to use the shower and exemplary damages in relation to the notice to terminate.
The landlord applied for compensation for damage and exemplary damages in relation a list of matters including intimidation, malicious intent and six months breaching safety. Tenant’s application
The tenant claims that there was a period where the shower at the premises could not be used and is seeking compensation for this.
The evidence is that there are two bathrooms and at some stage one of the showers was leaking into a downstairs tenancy. The tenant could not give a date for when the leaking began but says that the issue was fixed on 26 December 2022.
The landlord says that it took two months to fix the issue because of a shortage of plumbers. The landlord says that the tenant had more flatmates and continued to use the shower.
On the evidence submitted it is not clear how long, or even if, the tenant did not have the use of the shower. Due to a lack of evidence, I am unable to award any compensation.
The other issue raised by the tenant was the notice given for the tenancy to end.
The landlord says that she gave notice on two occasions. The first notice was dated 24 January 2023 and gave 90 days’ notice to end on 24 April 2023. The landlord showed the notice on her cellphone but has not produced it for the Tribunal’s record. That notice did not comply with section 51(3)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act because no reason was given for the termination.
The landlord says that she verbally advised the tenant that the owner required the premises for a family member, but no evidence was produced to support this.
The landlord says that she gave the tenant a second notice to terminate on 1 April 2023. While I sighted that notice again the landlord did not produce a copy for the Tribunal’s record. That notice also did not provide reasons for the termination.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord gave notice without reason. At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that the notice given may be unlawful. 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.
The landlord said at the hearing that she had to end the tenancy because the premises were a hazard and there is no insurance. She said that the tenant did not pass inspection and the shower was leaking and they needed access to repair it. She kept repeating during the hearing that there was a danger and hazard to the property and safety of others.
An adjournment of the hearing was provided for the landlord to forward the two notices, but the landlord did not do so.
The tenant gave evidence that when tenancy ended, he lived in a caravan, where he continues to live.
Of concern is that the landlord knew that a reason needed to be provided for the tenancy to end but this was not provided to the tenant in either of the notices. The failure by the landlord to give a lawful notice to end the tenancy had a negative impact on the tenant. It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with the legislation when giving notice to end tenancies.
I consider that the tenant should be compensated, and I award him one weeks rent as compensation. Landlord’s application
The landlord applied for compensation for damage to the premises. The landlord stated at the hearing that photographs were uploaded for the hearing but there were none on the system.
After the brief adjournment the landlord provided a handful of photographs showing a chaotic and messy premises. No detail was given in relation to the damage and no quotes or invoices were produced. When asked about this the landlord said that the repairs were ongoing.
Due to a lack of evidence, it is not possible to make any award for compensation for damages.
The landlord also claims exemplary damages.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord did not produce evidence to support the claim and therefore no award for exemplary damages can be made. That claim is dismissed.
Because Marlene Stuart and Tom Bieder Atkinson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4668271 — net $470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: terminate without grounds	$450.00	terminate without grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$470.44
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$470.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5925377-002) to Marlene Stuart and Tom Bieder Atkinson immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.
Michelle Property Management Limited As Agent For Paul Manning must pay Marlene Stuart and Tom Bieder Atkinson $470.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 17 December 2019 and ended on 3 July 2023.
At the commencement of the hearing the landlord claimed that there was no tenancy agreement and Mr Atkinson was not a tenant. With his application the tenant produced a tenancy agreement showing that the tenancy commenced on 17 December 2019 for weekly rent of $450.00. The agent for the landlord at the time was Waitakere Real Estate Ltd. The tenancy was periodic.
Since the commencement of the tenancy the owner has changed the agent representing him. However, the tenancy agreement continues to apply to this tenancy.
The applications filed by the parties did not include Marlene Stuart as a tenant, but she is clearly a tenant on the tenancy agreement and no document was produced to show that she ceased being a tenant. The bond is held at the Bond Centre in both tenants’ names. Ms Stuart also attended the hearing. Her name is therefore included in this order.
The tenant applied for compensation in relation to not being able to use the shower and exemplary damages in relation to the notice to terminate.
The landlord applied for compensation for damage and exemplary damages in relation a list of matters including intimidation, malicious intent and six months breaching safety. Tenant’s application
The tenant claims that there was a period where the shower at the premises could not be used and is seeking compensation for this.
The evidence is that there are two bathrooms and at some stage one of the showers was leaking into a downstairs tenancy. The tenant could not give a date for when the leaking began but says that the issue was fixed on 26 December 2022.
The landlord says that it took two months to fix the issue because of a shortage of plumbers. The landlord says that the tenant had more flatmates and continued to use the shower.
On the evidence submitted it is not clear how long, or even if, the tenant did not have the use of the shower. Due to a lack of evidence, I am unable to award any compensation.
The other issue raised by the tenant was the notice given for the tenancy to end.
The landlord says that she gave notice on two occasions. The first notice was dated 24 January 2023 and gave 90 days’ notice to end on 24 April 2023. The landlord showed the notice on her cellphone but has not produced it for the Tribunal’s record. That notice did not comply with section 51(3)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act because no reason was given for the termination.
The landlord says that she verbally advised the tenant that the owner required the premises for a family member, but no evidence was produced to support this.
The landlord says that she gave the tenant a second notice to terminate on 1 April 2023. While I sighted that notice again the landlord did not produce a copy for the Tribunal’s record. That notice also did not provide reasons for the termination.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord gave notice without reason. At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that the notice given may be unlawful. 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.
The landlord said at the hearing that she had to end the tenancy because the premises were a hazard and there is no insurance. She said that the tenant did not pass inspection and the shower was leaking and they needed access to repair it. She kept repeating during the hearing that there was a danger and hazard to the property and safety of others.
An adjournment of the hearing was provided for the landlord to forward the two notices, but the landlord did not do so.
The tenant gave evidence that when tenancy ended, he lived in a caravan, where he continues to live.
Of concern is that the landlord knew that a reason needed to be provided for the tenancy to end but this was not provided to the tenant in either of the notices. The failure by the landlord to give a lawful notice to end the tenancy had a negative impact on the tenant. It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with the legislation when giving notice to end tenancies.
I consider that the tenant should be compensated, and I award him one weeks rent as compensation. Landlord’s application
The landlord applied for compensation for damage to the premises. The landlord stated at the hearing that photographs were uploaded for the hearing but there were none on the system.
After the brief adjournment the landlord provided a handful of photographs showing a chaotic and messy premises. No detail was given in relation to the damage and no quotes or invoices were produced. When asked about this the landlord said that the repairs were ongoing.
Due to a lack of evidence, it is not possible to make any award for compensation for damages.
The landlord also claims exemplary damages.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord did not produce evidence to support the claim and therefore no award for exemplary damages can be made. That claim is dismissed.
Because Marlene Stuart and Tom Bieder Atkinson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4668271 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 4 Waikaukau Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4668271 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 4 Waikaukau Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

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