What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4670350?

The tribunal order states: Lynda Curin must pay Melissa Lynn Rutland $1,400.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4670350?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670350?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9718451-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4670350?

The tribunal order states: Lynda Curin must pay Melissa Lynn Rutland $1,400.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4670350?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670350?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9718451-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

193 Kairangi Road, Rotoorangi, RD 3, Cambridge 3495 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4670350 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4670350 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond release	$900.00	17. The landlord is ordered to pay $900.00 to the tenant.
Compensation	$500.00	he tenant. In the circumstances as described above, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 to the tenant in general damages.
Net award	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,400.00

Order

Lynda Curin must pay Melissa Lynn Rutland $1,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was part heard on 9 October 2023 as to the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction only.
In an order dated 10 October 2023, the Tribunal found that the arrangement between the parties was in terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a tenancy and that accordingly the Tribunal did have jurisdiction.
Having found that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction, a further teleconference hearing was held on 5 December 2023 to consider the tenant applications to the Tribunal.
The premises in issue are in a rural area at 193 Kairangi Road, Cambridge and consist of a 2-bedroom self-contained cottage (“the premises”) situated on the same land as the landlord’s home.
The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2023 and ended on 21 August 2023.
The tenant claims considered by the Tribunal in this hearing are; • Release of bond. • Failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and exemplary damages for that breach. • Compensation for petrol and stress. • Landlord terminating the tenancy without grounds and exemplary damages for that breach. General law
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
In this matter, the onus or job of proving the claims falls on the tenant.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been considered in reaching this decision.
Some of the evidence placed before the Tribunal by the landlord prior to this hearing appeared to be in support of her view that the arrangement between these parties was not a tenancy but a B n B. The Tribunal has already ruled on that specific issue in the previous order and found it to be a tenancy. I have not considered that issue in this hearing as the matter has previously been ruled upon. Release of bond and failure to lodge bond
The tenant paid $1,100.00 bond to the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant says that she received $200.00 from the landlord at the end of the tenancy and that the balance had been withheld by the landlord for unpaid rent.
At the hearing, the landlord said that she had retained part of the bond to cover unpaid rent. However, the landlord did not file an application with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim (the emphasis is mine).
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond must be refunded by the landlord in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date for the rent arrears. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
The landlord is ordered to pay $900.00 to the tenant.
The tenant further claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA).
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation, but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
In this matter, I accept that the landlord was under a genuine misapprehension as to the nature of the arrangement between the parties. The landlord did not lodge the bond as she genuinely considered that she did not have to. This landlord does not have other tenancies and could not be considered an experienced landlord. In those circumstances, I make no order for exemplary damages. Compensation
The tenant has claimed $500.00 as compensation to cover petrol costs incurred in shifting premises and general stress for emotional harm as a result of having the tenancy terminated.
The evidence of the exact nature of the discussion leading up to the landlord giving the tenant notice of termination of the tenancy is unclear. The landlord said that she sent a message to the tenant asking to talk the next day. The tenant on receiving the message has approached the landlord directly asking what she wished to discuss. The conversation then proceeded in the presence of a friend of the tenant. The tenant said that this was very embarrassing for her.
The tenant’s application seeks general damages of $500.00. In None v Singh (2022) NZTT 4315225, the Tribunal reviewed the issue of general damages and the levels that may be appropriate. The Tribunal held that; “I consider that the bands that might usefully inform my decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
The nature of the tenants’ emotional harm is aptly described in Band A. The tenant seeks $500.00 by way of compensation. The landlord indicated during the hearing that she was prepared to make a payment to the tenant. In the circumstances as described above, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 to the tenant in general damages.
The tenant claimed that the landlord has terminated the tenancy without grounds (see s.60 AA RTA). That section requires that the landlord know that they are not entitled to terminate the tenancy. In this matter, I prefer and accept the evidence of the landlord, in that she genuinely considered this to be a B n B arrangement and that no specific termination procedure was required in those circumstances. The application by the tenant is accordingly dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4670350 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond release	$900.00	17. The landlord is ordered to pay $900.00 to the tenant.
Compensation	$500.00	he tenant. In the circumstances as described above, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 to the tenant in general damages.
Net award	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,400.00

Order

Lynda Curin must pay Melissa Lynn Rutland $1,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was part heard on 9 October 2023 as to the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction only.
In an order dated 10 October 2023, the Tribunal found that the arrangement between the parties was in terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a tenancy and that accordingly the Tribunal did have jurisdiction.
Having found that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction, a further teleconference hearing was held on 5 December 2023 to consider the tenant applications to the Tribunal.
The premises in issue are in a rural area at 193 Kairangi Road, Cambridge and consist of a 2-bedroom self-contained cottage (“the premises”) situated on the same land as the landlord’s home.
The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2023 and ended on 21 August 2023.
The tenant claims considered by the Tribunal in this hearing are; • Release of bond. • Failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and exemplary damages for that breach. • Compensation for petrol and stress. • Landlord terminating the tenancy without grounds and exemplary damages for that breach. General law
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
In this matter, the onus or job of proving the claims falls on the tenant.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been considered in reaching this decision.
Some of the evidence placed before the Tribunal by the landlord prior to this hearing appeared to be in support of her view that the arrangement between these parties was not a tenancy but a B n B. The Tribunal has already ruled on that specific issue in the previous order and found it to be a tenancy. I have not considered that issue in this hearing as the matter has previously been ruled upon. Release of bond and failure to lodge bond
The tenant paid $1,100.00 bond to the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant says that she received $200.00 from the landlord at the end of the tenancy and that the balance had been withheld by the landlord for unpaid rent.
At the hearing, the landlord said that she had retained part of the bond to cover unpaid rent. However, the landlord did not file an application with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim (the emphasis is mine).
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond must be refunded by the landlord in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date for the rent arrears. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
The landlord is ordered to pay $900.00 to the tenant.
The tenant further claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA).
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation, but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
In this matter, I accept that the landlord was under a genuine misapprehension as to the nature of the arrangement between the parties. The landlord did not lodge the bond as she genuinely considered that she did not have to. This landlord does not have other tenancies and could not be considered an experienced landlord. In those circumstances, I make no order for exemplary damages. Compensation
The tenant has claimed $500.00 as compensation to cover petrol costs incurred in shifting premises and general stress for emotional harm as a result of having the tenancy terminated.
The evidence of the exact nature of the discussion leading up to the landlord giving the tenant notice of termination of the tenancy is unclear. The landlord said that she sent a message to the tenant asking to talk the next day. The tenant on receiving the message has approached the landlord directly asking what she wished to discuss. The conversation then proceeded in the presence of a friend of the tenant. The tenant said that this was very embarrassing for her.
The tenant’s application seeks general damages of $500.00. In None v Singh (2022) NZTT 4315225, the Tribunal reviewed the issue of general damages and the levels that may be appropriate. The Tribunal held that; “I consider that the bands that might usefully inform my decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
The nature of the tenants’ emotional harm is aptly described in Band A. The tenant seeks $500.00 by way of compensation. The landlord indicated during the hearing that she was prepared to make a payment to the tenant. In the circumstances as described above, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 to the tenant in general damages.
The tenant claimed that the landlord has terminated the tenancy without grounds (see s.60 AA RTA). That section requires that the landlord know that they are not entitled to terminate the tenancy. In this matter, I prefer and accept the evidence of the landlord, in that she genuinely considered this to be a B n B arrangement and that no specific termination procedure was required in those circumstances. The application by the tenant is accordingly dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670350 — Tenancy dispute at 193 Kairangi Road, Rotoorangi, RD 3, Cambridge 3495

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670350 — Tenancy dispute at 193 Kairangi Road, Rotoorangi, RD 3, Cambridge 3495

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions