What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4691071?

The tribunal order states: Anya Reid must pay Jane Marian Forkert $270.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4691071?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691071?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9853576-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4691071?

The tribunal order states: Anya Reid must pay Jane Marian Forkert $270.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4691071?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691071?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9853576-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

317 River Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4691071 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4691071 — net $270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$270.44

Order

Anya Reid must pay Jane Marian Forkert $270.44 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A support person accompanied Ms Reid.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages for retaliatory notice, non-lodgement of bond and unlawful termination.
The bond has already been disbursed. Termination
Jane Marian Forkert claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.
Section 51(2)(f), RTA, states that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if, among other grounds, extensive alterations, refurbishments, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner and; (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
The taking of a material step means applying for regulatory consent, seeking building, engineering, or any other professional advice, or taking any other significant step.
The tenant disputed that the alterations, refurbishments, and repairs were extensive, believing that she could have remained in the house during the process. The premises had 3 toilets and two bathrooms, and she could have used one while the others were renovated.
She said that the re-carpeting, wall repairs and wallpapering although inconvenient could have been done while the premises remained tenanted, and she disputed that the premises would have been unsanitary and unsafe during the process.
The tenant agreed that she had a lot of items in storage in the third bedroom at the property including belongings for family members and items received from an estate.
The tenant also was concerned about the timing of the renovations as she was about to go on an overseas trip and believed it was motivated by her notifying the landlord that she was going to have a boarder at the premises. This issue is discussed under the retaliatory notice claim.
The landlord said that the renovations and repairs were extensive and required because of damage from significant weather events and the need to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord confirmed that the renovations began the week after the tenant vacated and are ongoing. The premises have not been re tenanted. Once the builder started, the repairs were occurring all at once and she believed that the premises were unsanitary and unsafe for the tenant, her two dogs and two cats. Workman outside working on the deck and demolishing the shed created a gap in the fencing for a period of time which the landlord believed was unsafe for the pets.
The landlord provided copies of email exchanges with her builder referring to discussions in August 2023 about the building works to be undertaken. This included replacing rotten weatherboards, renovating the middle bathroom, installing a new shower and vanity and re-gibbing. They also were to replace outside facia and install new handrail on deck, box and concrete up to the back steps.
A large outside shed has been demolished and some walls and sub floors at the premises required repairs due to water damage from the recent weather events.
A copy of a signed short form agreement signed and dated on 10 November 2023 was provided.
The landlord said the inside was also to be completely recarpeted, and an invoice for this dated 10 November 2023 was provided. The premises also required electrical work and plumbing work.
The largest bedroom was re wallpapered which the landlord began herself the week after the tenant vacated. Photographs were produced.
The landlord provided copies of the builder’s invoices dated 12 December 2023 for over $17,000.00 worth of work completed. She said that the guttering was going to be totally replaced on 11 February and the middle bathroom was still to be renovated.
The landlord said that all the doors were removed and skimmed after the carpet went in and she could not have provided the tenant with privacy during this time. The tenant disputed this and believed that she could have continued to rent the premises in this condition.
I find that extensive repairs and renovations were and are currently being carried out by the owner of the premises. When looking at each project in isolation it may have been possible for a tenancy to continue if one of the repairs was made. However, considering the evidence provided of the large amount of work projects all occurring at the same time, and the safety and inconvenience, I find that it would not have been reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while this was occurring.
There was evidence provided that the work began well within 90 days after the termination date of 27 October 2023.
This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory Notice
On 18 July 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 27 October 2023.The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The District Court has held that when an application to find a notice terminating a tenancy was retaliatory was filed out of time, and no good reason was given for noncompliance, then there is a valid argument that the tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim. See Hooker v Abode Acquisitions Ltd [2011] NZDC.
The time between receiving the notice terminating a tenancy and making an application to the Tribunal was over 100 days. No good reason was put forward for this delay. I find that there is no jurisdiction to hear this claim.
This claim is dismissed. Bond
Jane Marian Forkert 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 agreed that through an oversight on her behalf that the bond paid on 29 June 2022 was not lodged until 28 October 2022.
The landlord informed the tenant as soon as she realised and calculated the interest that would have been received by the funds during this time and offered it as a credit to the tenant on their next rent payment. The tenant accepted this credited amount.
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.
It is very important that landlords deposit the bond with the bond centre as it is not their money. The bond centre is a third party that holds the funds as a surety for end of tenant claims.
The tenant did not have access to or use of the bond money while it was in the landlord’s account. It is acknowledged that the landlord immediately deposited the bond and repaid interest, however it is in the public interest that a landlord complies with the requirements of the RTA and operate correct financial procedures to ensure that the tenants funds are protected.
I find it just to award $250.00 in exemplary damages for this breach.
There was no claim made for name suppression.
The tenant was mostly successful, and the filing fee is reimbursed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4691071 — net $270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$270.44

Order

Anya Reid must pay Jane Marian Forkert $270.44 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A support person accompanied Ms Reid.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages for retaliatory notice, non-lodgement of bond and unlawful termination.
The bond has already been disbursed. Termination
Jane Marian Forkert claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.
Section 51(2)(f), RTA, states that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if, among other grounds, extensive alterations, refurbishments, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner and; (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
The taking of a material step means applying for regulatory consent, seeking building, engineering, or any other professional advice, or taking any other significant step.
The tenant disputed that the alterations, refurbishments, and repairs were extensive, believing that she could have remained in the house during the process. The premises had 3 toilets and two bathrooms, and she could have used one while the others were renovated.
She said that the re-carpeting, wall repairs and wallpapering although inconvenient could have been done while the premises remained tenanted, and she disputed that the premises would have been unsanitary and unsafe during the process.
The tenant agreed that she had a lot of items in storage in the third bedroom at the property including belongings for family members and items received from an estate.
The tenant also was concerned about the timing of the renovations as she was about to go on an overseas trip and believed it was motivated by her notifying the landlord that she was going to have a boarder at the premises. This issue is discussed under the retaliatory notice claim.
The landlord said that the renovations and repairs were extensive and required because of damage from significant weather events and the need to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord confirmed that the renovations began the week after the tenant vacated and are ongoing. The premises have not been re tenanted. Once the builder started, the repairs were occurring all at once and she believed that the premises were unsanitary and unsafe for the tenant, her two dogs and two cats. Workman outside working on the deck and demolishing the shed created a gap in the fencing for a period of time which the landlord believed was unsafe for the pets.
The landlord provided copies of email exchanges with her builder referring to discussions in August 2023 about the building works to be undertaken. This included replacing rotten weatherboards, renovating the middle bathroom, installing a new shower and vanity and re-gibbing. They also were to replace outside facia and install new handrail on deck, box and concrete up to the back steps.
A large outside shed has been demolished and some walls and sub floors at the premises required repairs due to water damage from the recent weather events.
A copy of a signed short form agreement signed and dated on 10 November 2023 was provided.
The landlord said the inside was also to be completely recarpeted, and an invoice for this dated 10 November 2023 was provided. The premises also required electrical work and plumbing work.
The largest bedroom was re wallpapered which the landlord began herself the week after the tenant vacated. Photographs were produced.
The landlord provided copies of the builder’s invoices dated 12 December 2023 for over $17,000.00 worth of work completed. She said that the guttering was going to be totally replaced on 11 February and the middle bathroom was still to be renovated.
The landlord said that all the doors were removed and skimmed after the carpet went in and she could not have provided the tenant with privacy during this time. The tenant disputed this and believed that she could have continued to rent the premises in this condition.
I find that extensive repairs and renovations were and are currently being carried out by the owner of the premises. When looking at each project in isolation it may have been possible for a tenancy to continue if one of the repairs was made. However, considering the evidence provided of the large amount of work projects all occurring at the same time, and the safety and inconvenience, I find that it would not have been reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while this was occurring.
There was evidence provided that the work began well within 90 days after the termination date of 27 October 2023.
This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory Notice
On 18 July 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 27 October 2023.The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The District Court has held that when an application to find a notice terminating a tenancy was retaliatory was filed out of time, and no good reason was given for noncompliance, then there is a valid argument that the tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim. See Hooker v Abode Acquisitions Ltd [2011] NZDC.
The time between receiving the notice terminating a tenancy and making an application to the Tribunal was over 100 days. No good reason was put forward for this delay. I find that there is no jurisdiction to hear this claim.
This claim is dismissed. Bond
Jane Marian Forkert 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 agreed that through an oversight on her behalf that the bond paid on 29 June 2022 was not lodged until 28 October 2022.
The landlord informed the tenant as soon as she realised and calculated the interest that would have been received by the funds during this time and offered it as a credit to the tenant on their next rent payment. The tenant accepted this credited amount.
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.
It is very important that landlords deposit the bond with the bond centre as it is not their money. The bond centre is a third party that holds the funds as a surety for end of tenant claims.
The tenant did not have access to or use of the bond money while it was in the landlord’s account. It is acknowledged that the landlord immediately deposited the bond and repaid interest, however it is in the public interest that a landlord complies with the requirements of the RTA and operate correct financial procedures to ensure that the tenants funds are protected.
I find it just to award $250.00 in exemplary damages for this breach.
There was no claim made for name suppression.
The tenant was mostly successful, and the filing fee is reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691071 — Exemplary damages at 317 River Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691071 — Exemplary damages at 317 River Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214

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