What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724984?

The tribunal order states: The application for breach of Quiet Enjoyment is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4724984?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724984?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724984?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10041657-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724984?

The tribunal order states: The application for breach of Quiet Enjoyment is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4724984?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724984?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724984?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10041657-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 612, 421 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4724984 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724984 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for bed bugs LandlordTenant	$300.00	Compensation for bed bugs LandlordTenant
Exemplary damages: not filing bond	$200.00	not filing bond
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

The application for breach of Quiet Enjoyment is dismissed.
Ankit Arora must pay Moeko Misaki $500.00 immediately as outlined in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Misaki with the assistance of an interpreter on the phone and Mr Arora by phone.
This was a fixed term tenancy from 25 August 2023 to 22 November 2023. The tenancy was ended by agreement and the bond refunded to Ms Misaki.
Ms Misaki claims compensation for: (a)The landlord was aware there were bedbugs in the apartment prior to her entering and should not have rented the apartment to her. (b)The landlord entered the apartment without giving proper notice. (c)The landlord kept the bond and did not send it to the bond centre.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Renting Room knowing there were bedbugs
Ms Misaki informed the landlord 2 days after moving into the apartment there was a problem of bed bugs in her room. She showed photos of bedbugs.
Ms Misaki also showed a message from the landlord’s partner referring to a bedbug problem prior this tenancy where it is said “There were few that we saw but we used the bomb couple of times to fix it. This is quite normal as there can be bed bugs but all we have to do is treatment.”
Ms Misaki was provided a mattress as part of the tenancy agreement.
Mr Arora said there were no issues of bedbugs prior to Ms Misako moving in. He said it was likely from another flatmate who bought a second hand mattress. He said there were no issues raised by other tenants in the flat about bedbugs in their rooms prior to Ms Misaki entering.
Ms Misaki’s witness, another flatmate said he moved into the flat a week prior and was “not sure” if there were any bedbugs.
I am satisfied there was a problem of bedbugs prior to Ms Misaki moving in. It seemed the landlord did try to fix the problem prior but it did not work. The landlord said, unless the tenants informed them of a problem, they cannot deal with it.
The landlord should have ensured the property was pest-free. I am satisfied from hearing from the tenant that the bedbugs were present when she moved into the apartment.
I award tenant compensation of $300.00 for the inconvenience caused to her. The amount is low as the landlord did take steps to rectify the situation comprehensively and consistently once informed. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Ms Misaki says the landlord entered the apartment at times without giving proper notice. She says this happened when she was not in the apartment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord denies entry without proper notice, especially given Ms Misaki was female. The landlord provided a timeline of entry and showed messages showing when entry was required. This was primarily to address the issue of the bedbugs.
Ms Misaki has not provided sufficient evidence to show there was entry on other times. I am also satisfied there was no other motive to enter the premises other than to resolve the bedbugs issue.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Failure to lodge Bond
Ms Misaki 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 accepts he did not lodge the bond. He said he did not know about this and was only made aware of this as a requirement during the Tribunal process.
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.
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.
Because the impact on the tenant was minimal and the bond was returned, I award $200.00 to Ms Misaki for the failure of the landlord to lodge the bond. Mr Arora’s Claim
Mr Arora claimed compensation for the partial cost of the fumigation for bedbugs that was undertaken of the property.
The landlord has an obligation to provide the premises in a state of cleanliness. Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I earlier found there was no fault of Ms Misaki that there were bedbugs in her room/mattress. The cost for the fumigation is borne by the landlord as it was his duty to ensure the premises was pest-free.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Mr Arora had also initially sought to claim rent to the end of the fixed term, but was clear he agreed with the tenant to ending the tenancy earlier.
The property was also re-tenanted at the time he filed his cross-application was filed and rightly this claim has been withdrawn. Filing Fee and Suppression
I do not return the filing fee as neither party have had substantial success in their claims.
I do not grant name suppression of this decision. Having considered the issues raised by the tenant, it is in the public interest for landlords and tenants to be aware of their obligations at the start of any tenancy arrangement.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724984 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for bed bugs LandlordTenant	$300.00	Compensation for bed bugs LandlordTenant
Exemplary damages: not filing bond	$200.00	not filing bond
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

The application for breach of Quiet Enjoyment is dismissed.
Ankit Arora must pay Moeko Misaki $500.00 immediately as outlined in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Misaki with the assistance of an interpreter on the phone and Mr Arora by phone.
This was a fixed term tenancy from 25 August 2023 to 22 November 2023. The tenancy was ended by agreement and the bond refunded to Ms Misaki.
Ms Misaki claims compensation for: (a)The landlord was aware there were bedbugs in the apartment prior to her entering and should not have rented the apartment to her. (b)The landlord entered the apartment without giving proper notice. (c)The landlord kept the bond and did not send it to the bond centre.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Renting Room knowing there were bedbugs
Ms Misaki informed the landlord 2 days after moving into the apartment there was a problem of bed bugs in her room. She showed photos of bedbugs.
Ms Misaki also showed a message from the landlord’s partner referring to a bedbug problem prior this tenancy where it is said “There were few that we saw but we used the bomb couple of times to fix it. This is quite normal as there can be bed bugs but all we have to do is treatment.”
Ms Misaki was provided a mattress as part of the tenancy agreement.
Mr Arora said there were no issues of bedbugs prior to Ms Misako moving in. He said it was likely from another flatmate who bought a second hand mattress. He said there were no issues raised by other tenants in the flat about bedbugs in their rooms prior to Ms Misaki entering.
Ms Misaki’s witness, another flatmate said he moved into the flat a week prior and was “not sure” if there were any bedbugs.
I am satisfied there was a problem of bedbugs prior to Ms Misaki moving in. It seemed the landlord did try to fix the problem prior but it did not work. The landlord said, unless the tenants informed them of a problem, they cannot deal with it.
The landlord should have ensured the property was pest-free. I am satisfied from hearing from the tenant that the bedbugs were present when she moved into the apartment.
I award tenant compensation of $300.00 for the inconvenience caused to her. The amount is low as the landlord did take steps to rectify the situation comprehensively and consistently once informed. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Ms Misaki says the landlord entered the apartment at times without giving proper notice. She says this happened when she was not in the apartment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord denies entry without proper notice, especially given Ms Misaki was female. The landlord provided a timeline of entry and showed messages showing when entry was required. This was primarily to address the issue of the bedbugs.
Ms Misaki has not provided sufficient evidence to show there was entry on other times. I am also satisfied there was no other motive to enter the premises other than to resolve the bedbugs issue.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Failure to lodge Bond
Ms Misaki 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 accepts he did not lodge the bond. He said he did not know about this and was only made aware of this as a requirement during the Tribunal process.
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.
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.
Because the impact on the tenant was minimal and the bond was returned, I award $200.00 to Ms Misaki for the failure of the landlord to lodge the bond. Mr Arora’s Claim
Mr Arora claimed compensation for the partial cost of the fumigation for bedbugs that was undertaken of the property.
The landlord has an obligation to provide the premises in a state of cleanliness. Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I earlier found there was no fault of Ms Misaki that there were bedbugs in her room/mattress. The cost for the fumigation is borne by the landlord as it was his duty to ensure the premises was pest-free.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Mr Arora had also initially sought to claim rent to the end of the fixed term, but was clear he agreed with the tenant to ending the tenancy earlier.
The property was also re-tenanted at the time he filed his cross-application was filed and rightly this claim has been withdrawn. Filing Fee and Suppression
I do not return the filing fee as neither party have had substantial success in their claims.
I do not grant name suppression of this decision. Having considered the issues raised by the tenant, it is in the public interest for landlords and tenants to be aware of their obligations at the start of any tenancy arrangement.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724984 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 612, 421 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724984 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 612, 421 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

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