What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4740649?

The tribunal order states: Mervyn Seboshan Michael Dmello must pay Vinod Kumar Jangra and Priyanka

How much money was awarded in case 4740649?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740649?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9835564-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4740649?

The tribunal order states: Mervyn Seboshan Michael Dmello must pay Vinod Kumar Jangra and Priyanka

How much money was awarded in case 4740649?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740649?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9835564-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 9, 376 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4740649 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4740649. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent	$500.00		Failure to appoint an agent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Mervyn Seboshan Michael Dmello must pay Vinod Kumar Jangra and Priyanka Jangra $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (6390353-007) to Vinod Kumar Jangra and Priyanka Jangra immediately.
The tenant’s application is otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants attended in person. The landlord attended by telephone.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages on the ground that the landlord has interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenants’ application also refers to the landlord’s failure to appoint a local agent when he was out of New Zealand, and I take that as an application for exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s obligation to appoint a local agent when he was out of New Zealand for more than 21 consecutive days. Background
The parties knew each other before the tenancy began. The landlord had been living in the premises and was intending to sell it. When that did not pan out as expected, he offered it to the tenants and the parties agreed a tenancy.
The tenants said that there were four separate tenancy agreements but only two were produced to the Tribunal. The landlord said that those were the only agreements and I accept that.
The first agreement signed in February 2023 was periodic from 12 March 2023 at a rent of $400 per week. Unusually, it provided for both parties to give three months notice of termination. It restricted the number of occupants to four.
To the extent that the notice period applied to the tenant that term was fine. But the landlord cannot include a term is in a tenancy agreement that is contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and tenants cannot waive their rights under the Act. As the law stands, landlords must have grounds to end a tenancy and so a bare notice period for the landlord is contrary to the Act.
The landlord explained that the three months related to notice from him in the case of his intention to move back into the premises or to sell the premises. I accept that the parties had discussed that, and that was what was intended. Because the three months notice enlarged the tenants’ rights in that respect, the term is acceptable.
The second agreement signed on and starting on 7 May was also periodic but at a rent of $450 per week. It restricted the number of occupants to five.
Both agreements gave the landlord’s address for service as the tenancy address. For obvious reasons that is not a valid address for service. That is a breach of the Act but there has been no claim in relation to that.
Potentially, the rent increase is problematic because the Act provides that rent cannot be increased within the first year of the agreement. But that does not apply where there has been a variation of the agreement that benefits the tenant.
The relevant background is that the tenants intended having family members live them in the premises for an extended time which would take the number of occupants to more than four. The landlord was willing to vary the agreement to allow more occupants if the rent was increased. The parties therefore agreed to the new terms which benefitted the tenants in terms of occupancy. The rent increase was therefore permissible.
The landlord subsequently gave the tenants notices of termination in June and again in October. The grounds were landlord occupation and sale of the premises respectively.
The tenants complain that the landlord changed his mind late in the piece after serving the first notice with the result that the tenants stayed on. The tenants have made other complaints about the landlord’s behaviour that they say amounted to an interference with their quiet enjoyment and I deal with that issue in more detail next. Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
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.
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.
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.
Both parties referred to the fact that behind the messages that were produced to the Tribunal, there were conversations between them concerning the issues referred to in the messages. In other words, the messages do not tell the full story. I accept the landlord’s point that his messages to the tenants tended to confirm what had been discussed with the tenants.
As to the landlord’s withdrawal of the first termination notice, I accept that this suited both parties. The landlord’s circumstances had changed, and the tenants were having difficulty finding other accommodation. The tenants would have been within their rights to vacate the premises in accordance with the notice, but they were happy to stay. I find that there was an agreement that the notice would be withdrawn and there was no breach by the landlord.
I have considered the tenants’ other complaints about the landlord’s behaviour and putting it in the context of what was happening at the time, I find that it did not constitute interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises let alone harassment of the tenants.
This is reinforced by the absence of any complaint by the tenant at the time. The closest that the landlord came to breaching the Act was in an undated message to the tenant in which he said that “if you can’t follow simple English, kindly move out asap”. That was in relation to the landlord’s request that tenant should not contact the agent. That was not a serious request, and it was not taken as such by the tenant. Appointment of Agent
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand, and they must provide details of the agent to the tenant.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
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.
The landlord was out of New Zealand from September until the end of the tenancy. In the second tenancy agreement, the landlord notified the tenant of his agent in the event he was out of New Zealand. The problem is that the landlord did not want the tenant to deal with the agent and he made that very clear to the tenant. It seems he did not like what the agent was telling the tenant.
Ultimately, the tenant was forced to deal with the landlord direct when there should have been someone based in New Zealand with authority from the landlord to deal with any issues that arose concerning the tenancy. On 15 November, the landlord told the tenant that “(the agent) is not a property manager – but was back up to fix things, kindly do not contact (him)”.
The fact is that despite what was in the tenancy agreement, the landlord had not appointed a New Zealand agent. He intended dealing with the tenancy himself. There is no requirement to appoint a professional property manager as the agent, but there must at least be an appointment of someone who has the requisite authority who is capable for acting as an agent.
I find, therefore, that the landlord has acted in breach of the Act by not effectively appointing a New Zealand agent. I find that this was an intentional act. The landlord plainly had no intention of delegating authority to someone else.
The requirement is important because when a tenant does not have someone local to deal with tenancy issues, it can lead to difficulties for the tenant. In my view, there should be an award of exemplary damages for the breach.
That said, an agent would normally be required to follow the landlord’s instructions and so it is not clear what difference an agent would have made in this case. Nevertheless, there should have been a proper appointment. An award towards the lower end of the scale is justified and I have awarded $500. Filing Fee
The tenants have had some success and I award them the filing fee. Bond
The parties agreed that the bond should be paid to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4740649. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent	$500.00		Failure to appoint an agent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Mervyn Seboshan Michael Dmello must pay Vinod Kumar Jangra and Priyanka Jangra $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (6390353-007) to Vinod Kumar Jangra and Priyanka Jangra immediately.
The tenant’s application is otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants attended in person. The landlord attended by telephone.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages on the ground that the landlord has interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenants’ application also refers to the landlord’s failure to appoint a local agent when he was out of New Zealand, and I take that as an application for exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s obligation to appoint a local agent when he was out of New Zealand for more than 21 consecutive days. Background
The parties knew each other before the tenancy began. The landlord had been living in the premises and was intending to sell it. When that did not pan out as expected, he offered it to the tenants and the parties agreed a tenancy.
The tenants said that there were four separate tenancy agreements but only two were produced to the Tribunal. The landlord said that those were the only agreements and I accept that.
The first agreement signed in February 2023 was periodic from 12 March 2023 at a rent of $400 per week. Unusually, it provided for both parties to give three months notice of termination. It restricted the number of occupants to four.
To the extent that the notice period applied to the tenant that term was fine. But the landlord cannot include a term is in a tenancy agreement that is contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and tenants cannot waive their rights under the Act. As the law stands, landlords must have grounds to end a tenancy and so a bare notice period for the landlord is contrary to the Act.
The landlord explained that the three months related to notice from him in the case of his intention to move back into the premises or to sell the premises. I accept that the parties had discussed that, and that was what was intended. Because the three months notice enlarged the tenants’ rights in that respect, the term is acceptable.
The second agreement signed on and starting on 7 May was also periodic but at a rent of $450 per week. It restricted the number of occupants to five.
Both agreements gave the landlord’s address for service as the tenancy address. For obvious reasons that is not a valid address for service. That is a breach of the Act but there has been no claim in relation to that.
Potentially, the rent increase is problematic because the Act provides that rent cannot be increased within the first year of the agreement. But that does not apply where there has been a variation of the agreement that benefits the tenant.
The relevant background is that the tenants intended having family members live them in the premises for an extended time which would take the number of occupants to more than four. The landlord was willing to vary the agreement to allow more occupants if the rent was increased. The parties therefore agreed to the new terms which benefitted the tenants in terms of occupancy. The rent increase was therefore permissible.
The landlord subsequently gave the tenants notices of termination in June and again in October. The grounds were landlord occupation and sale of the premises respectively.
The tenants complain that the landlord changed his mind late in the piece after serving the first notice with the result that the tenants stayed on. The tenants have made other complaints about the landlord’s behaviour that they say amounted to an interference with their quiet enjoyment and I deal with that issue in more detail next. Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
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.
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.
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.
Both parties referred to the fact that behind the messages that were produced to the Tribunal, there were conversations between them concerning the issues referred to in the messages. In other words, the messages do not tell the full story. I accept the landlord’s point that his messages to the tenants tended to confirm what had been discussed with the tenants.
As to the landlord’s withdrawal of the first termination notice, I accept that this suited both parties. The landlord’s circumstances had changed, and the tenants were having difficulty finding other accommodation. The tenants would have been within their rights to vacate the premises in accordance with the notice, but they were happy to stay. I find that there was an agreement that the notice would be withdrawn and there was no breach by the landlord.
I have considered the tenants’ other complaints about the landlord’s behaviour and putting it in the context of what was happening at the time, I find that it did not constitute interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises let alone harassment of the tenants.
This is reinforced by the absence of any complaint by the tenant at the time. The closest that the landlord came to breaching the Act was in an undated message to the tenant in which he said that “if you can’t follow simple English, kindly move out asap”. That was in relation to the landlord’s request that tenant should not contact the agent. That was not a serious request, and it was not taken as such by the tenant. Appointment of Agent
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand, and they must provide details of the agent to the tenant.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
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.
The landlord was out of New Zealand from September until the end of the tenancy. In the second tenancy agreement, the landlord notified the tenant of his agent in the event he was out of New Zealand. The problem is that the landlord did not want the tenant to deal with the agent and he made that very clear to the tenant. It seems he did not like what the agent was telling the tenant.
Ultimately, the tenant was forced to deal with the landlord direct when there should have been someone based in New Zealand with authority from the landlord to deal with any issues that arose concerning the tenancy. On 15 November, the landlord told the tenant that “(the agent) is not a property manager – but was back up to fix things, kindly do not contact (him)”.
The fact is that despite what was in the tenancy agreement, the landlord had not appointed a New Zealand agent. He intended dealing with the tenancy himself. There is no requirement to appoint a professional property manager as the agent, but there must at least be an appointment of someone who has the requisite authority who is capable for acting as an agent.
I find, therefore, that the landlord has acted in breach of the Act by not effectively appointing a New Zealand agent. I find that this was an intentional act. The landlord plainly had no intention of delegating authority to someone else.
The requirement is important because when a tenant does not have someone local to deal with tenancy issues, it can lead to difficulties for the tenant. In my view, there should be an award of exemplary damages for the breach.
That said, an agent would normally be required to follow the landlord’s instructions and so it is not clear what difference an agent would have made in this case. Nevertheless, there should have been a proper appointment. An award towards the lower end of the scale is justified and I have awarded $500. Filing Fee
The tenants have had some success and I award them the filing fee. Bond
The parties agreed that the bond should be paid to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740649 — Exemplary damages at Flat 9, 376 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740649 — Exemplary damages at Flat 9, 376 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions