What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756658?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Yuill must pay Heather Mary Hewetson Riley, Ughanthi Sridhar, Kai Wang

How much money was awarded in case 4756658?

Compensation: Rent Rebate: $51.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756658?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10229700-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756658?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Yuill must pay Heather Mary Hewetson Riley, Ughanthi Sridhar, Kai Wang

How much money was awarded in case 4756658?

Compensation: Rent Rebate: $51.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756658?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10229700-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Short Street, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756658 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756658 — net $971.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond	$600.00	Refund of bond
Compensation: rent rebate	$51.00	rent rebate
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$300.00	Failure to lodge bond
Net award	$971.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$971.44

Order

Daniel Yuill must pay Heather Mary Hewetson Riley, Ughanthi Sridhar, Kai Wang and Shubham Navin Gujare $971.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This was a telephone hearing. Heather Riley and Shubham Gujare appeared on behalf of the tenants. The landlord Daniel Yuill also attended.
The tenancy began on 19 November 2023 and ended on 1 December 2023. The tenants agreed to the tenancy based on photos provided by the landlord.
No tenancy agreement was provided to the tenants. There was no dispute or claim that this was not a tenancy.
The original agreement between the parties was that the tenancy would be for a period of three months, each room was individually rented to a tenant and each tenant paid $150.00 as part of the bond to the landlord. The premises were fully furnished and originally there were four tenants.
The landlord said that this was a stretch as the initial agreement was for two people. The tenants then they asked if another two tenants could join them. The fourth bedroom was a converted garage that was attached to the house. Entry to the house and bathroom facilities for that room was through another bedroom or via an outside access door and then entry to the house.
The tenancy ended when the parties could not agree on the rent to be paid when one person moved out after a few days. The tenants stated that because they had individual agreements that they were not responsible for a corresponding rent increase.
The tenants refused to pay the rent increase and fearing that their belonging would be removed by the landlord, moved out. A copy of a text was provided where the landlord threatened to do this.
The tenants sought refund of their bond, exemplary damages, rebate of rent for the fourth room and reimbursement of the filling fee. Bond
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. The landlord does not have a claim against the bond and has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. The landlord agreed that he received the bond payments and has not deposited them in the bond centre or refunded them.
The landlord said he did not feel like he should return the bond because of the arguments ,complaints and tenancy ending which messed up his summer .
A bond is the tenant’s money that is supposed to be held by the bond centre, being a third party, for rent arrears and end of tenancy claims.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenants.
The tenants claim 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,RTA.
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.
Evidence was provided that the bonds were paid on 24 and 25 September 2023.It was not disputed that the bond was never lodged. I find the landlord has 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 that he did not get around to lodging the bond. Lodging the bond is a requirement of the RTA to safeguard tenants’ money. The landlord has had the use of the tenant’s money for this time and failed to comply with the RTA. I find it is just to award $300.00 in exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond. Rent Rebate
The tenant sought compensation for the fourth bedroom being a garage without proper access to the house. The landlord confirmed that the fourth bedroom was a converted garage, and that access was through another tenant’s room or outside form its own external access.
The landlord said that it was consented and no one else had complained about this before.
The tenants said that they were unaware of this until they were at the premises. Mr Gujare ,whose room it was said it was difficult and uncomfortable for him because a female tenant was living in the bedroom that he had to walk through to the house and bathroom and there were no locks on the door. He said that the room also had wires in it and was not a proper bedroom.
No evidence was provided that the room was unconsented or illegal and the landlord said the wire would have been for a television.
I award compensation for the room not being in the house and having no separate access to the premises at $30.00 per week The tenancy was for 12 days so the amount awarded is $51.00.
The tenants claimed for compensation for mental distress because of the way that the tenancy had ended and their treatment by the landlord. Compensation is awarded where a loss is suffered and there was no evidence provided supporting this. This claim is dismissed.
Because Heather Mary Hewetson Riley, Ughanthi Sridhar, Kai Wang, Shubham Navin Gujare has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756658 — net $971.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond	$600.00	Refund of bond
Compensation: rent rebate	$51.00	rent rebate
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$300.00	Failure to lodge bond
Net award	$971.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$971.44

Order

Daniel Yuill must pay Heather Mary Hewetson Riley, Ughanthi Sridhar, Kai Wang and Shubham Navin Gujare $971.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This was a telephone hearing. Heather Riley and Shubham Gujare appeared on behalf of the tenants. The landlord Daniel Yuill also attended.
The tenancy began on 19 November 2023 and ended on 1 December 2023. The tenants agreed to the tenancy based on photos provided by the landlord.
No tenancy agreement was provided to the tenants. There was no dispute or claim that this was not a tenancy.
The original agreement between the parties was that the tenancy would be for a period of three months, each room was individually rented to a tenant and each tenant paid $150.00 as part of the bond to the landlord. The premises were fully furnished and originally there were four tenants.
The landlord said that this was a stretch as the initial agreement was for two people. The tenants then they asked if another two tenants could join them. The fourth bedroom was a converted garage that was attached to the house. Entry to the house and bathroom facilities for that room was through another bedroom or via an outside access door and then entry to the house.
The tenancy ended when the parties could not agree on the rent to be paid when one person moved out after a few days. The tenants stated that because they had individual agreements that they were not responsible for a corresponding rent increase.
The tenants refused to pay the rent increase and fearing that their belonging would be removed by the landlord, moved out. A copy of a text was provided where the landlord threatened to do this.
The tenants sought refund of their bond, exemplary damages, rebate of rent for the fourth room and reimbursement of the filling fee. Bond
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. The landlord does not have a claim against the bond and has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. The landlord agreed that he received the bond payments and has not deposited them in the bond centre or refunded them.
The landlord said he did not feel like he should return the bond because of the arguments ,complaints and tenancy ending which messed up his summer .
A bond is the tenant’s money that is supposed to be held by the bond centre, being a third party, for rent arrears and end of tenancy claims.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenants.
The tenants claim 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,RTA.
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.
Evidence was provided that the bonds were paid on 24 and 25 September 2023.It was not disputed that the bond was never lodged. I find the landlord has 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 that he did not get around to lodging the bond. Lodging the bond is a requirement of the RTA to safeguard tenants’ money. The landlord has had the use of the tenant’s money for this time and failed to comply with the RTA. I find it is just to award $300.00 in exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond. Rent Rebate
The tenant sought compensation for the fourth bedroom being a garage without proper access to the house. The landlord confirmed that the fourth bedroom was a converted garage, and that access was through another tenant’s room or outside form its own external access.
The landlord said that it was consented and no one else had complained about this before.
The tenants said that they were unaware of this until they were at the premises. Mr Gujare ,whose room it was said it was difficult and uncomfortable for him because a female tenant was living in the bedroom that he had to walk through to the house and bathroom and there were no locks on the door. He said that the room also had wires in it and was not a proper bedroom.
No evidence was provided that the room was unconsented or illegal and the landlord said the wire would have been for a television.
I award compensation for the room not being in the house and having no separate access to the premises at $30.00 per week The tenancy was for 12 days so the amount awarded is $51.00.
The tenants claimed for compensation for mental distress because of the way that the tenancy had ended and their treatment by the landlord. Compensation is awarded where a loss is suffered and there was no evidence provided supporting this. This claim is dismissed.
Because Heather Mary Hewetson Riley, Ughanthi Sridhar, Kai Wang, Shubham Navin Gujare has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756658 — Exemplary damages at 16 Short Street, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756658 — Exemplary damages at 16 Short Street, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110

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