What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776959?

The tribunal order states: Lei Bi must pay The Property Management Company Limited $929.29

How much money was awarded in case 4776959?

Compensation: $608.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776959?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9931925-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776959?

The tribunal order states: Lei Bi must pay The Property Management Company Limited $929.29

How much money was awarded in case 4776959?

Compensation: $608.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776959?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9931925-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 15 View Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776959 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776959 — net $929.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for loss due to tenant refusing to allow entry	$608.85	Compensation for loss due to tenant refusing to allow entry
Exemplary damages	$300.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$929.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$929.29

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Peters and Ms Thomas represented the landlord.

The landlord has claimed compensation and exemplary damages for the alleged failure by the tenant to allow access so the landlord could show prospective tenants the premises.

Under section 48(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) a landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant’s consent to show the premises to prospective tenants. A tenant may not unreasonably withhold consent.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The landlord sought the tenant’s consent to conduct viewings for prospective tenants on 3 days, 2 of which were Saturdays.

The tenant advised the landlord in writing on 4 January 2024 as follows: While we are in our home our home is not open to anyone for an open home. I do not give permission for anyone to view my home before the date that I leave the house.

The landlord responded in writing pointing out links for the tenant to be aware of her responsibilities under the RTA.

Then, on 5 January 2024, Mr Peters said he phoned to tenant to further explain her responsibility to provide access. He said she was adamant she would not allow access for viewings.

The tenant said she would not allow access only on the following Saturday because her son was sick, and she suspected he had covid. Also, she had high blood pressure. She said she told Mr Peters she would not allow access using the words ‘currently not’.

The landlord then withdrew the listing for the property. Ms Thomas said she had 20 applicants for the premises, but they had to be put off.

I find that the tenant expressed a clear intention not to allow the landlord access. I do not accept that when she advised Mr Peters ‘currently not’ she was open to negotiation. She made her intentions clear in her email dated 4 January 2024. She took no further steps to advise the landlord that she would consent to viewings by prospective tenants. I find that the tenant 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) RTA.

The tenant’s actions had an effect on the landlord and were against its interests. They were also against the public interest.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. The landlord has proved a claim for exemplary damages in this case. I award the landlord exemplary damages of $300.00 for this unlawful act (the maximum amount being $1,500.00).

Separately, the landlord sought compensation for its losses. Unlike exemplary damages, compensation is not punitive.

The landlord lost 3 weeks’ rent (it has claimed the equivalent of 2 weeks’ rent); and had to withdraw the tenancy listing the fee for which was $113.85.

I award the landlord compensation equivalent to 1 week’s rent ($495.00) and the listing fee it lost. Delay in finding a new tenant can be for varying reasons. Result

The tenant will pay the landlord $929.29 comprised of compensation of $608.85, exemplary damages of $300.00, and the filing fee of $20.44. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought name suppression but is not entitled to an order as her defence to the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776959 — net $929.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for loss due to tenant refusing to allow entry	$608.85	Compensation for loss due to tenant refusing to allow entry
Exemplary damages	$300.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$929.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$929.29

Order

Lei Bi must pay The Property Management Company Limited $929.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Peters and Ms Thomas represented the landlord.
The landlord has claimed compensation and exemplary damages for the alleged failure by the tenant to allow access so the landlord could show prospective tenants the premises.
Under section 48(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) a landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant’s consent to show the premises to prospective tenants. A tenant may not unreasonably withhold consent.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord sought the tenant’s consent to conduct viewings for prospective tenants on 3 days, 2 of which were Saturdays.
The tenant advised the landlord in writing on 4 January 2024 as follows: While we are in our home our home is not open to anyone for an open home. I do not give permission for anyone to view my home before the date that I leave the house.
The landlord responded in writing pointing out links for the tenant to be aware of her responsibilities under the RTA.
Then, on 5 January 2024, Mr Peters said he phoned to tenant to further explain her responsibility to provide access. He said she was adamant she would not allow access for viewings.
The tenant said she would not allow access only on the following Saturday because her son was sick, and she suspected he had covid. Also, she had high blood pressure. She said she told Mr Peters she would not allow access using the words ‘currently not’.
The landlord then withdrew the listing for the property. Ms Thomas said she had 20 applicants for the premises, but they had to be put off.
I find that the tenant expressed a clear intention not to allow the landlord access. I do not accept that when she advised Mr Peters ‘currently not’ she was open to negotiation. She made her intentions clear in her email dated 4 January 2024. She took no further steps to advise the landlord that she would consent to viewings by prospective tenants. I find that the tenant 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) RTA.
The tenant’s actions had an effect on the landlord and were against its interests. They were also against the public interest.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. The landlord has proved a claim for exemplary damages in this case. I award the landlord exemplary damages of $300.00 for this unlawful act (the maximum amount being $1,500.00).
Separately, the landlord sought compensation for its losses. Unlike exemplary damages, compensation is not punitive.
The landlord lost 3 weeks’ rent (it has claimed the equivalent of 2 weeks’ rent); and had to withdraw the tenancy listing the fee for which was $113.85.
I award the landlord compensation equivalent to 1 week’s rent ($495.00) and the listing fee it lost. Delay in finding a new tenant can be for varying reasons. Result
The tenant will pay the landlord $929.29 comprised of compensation of $608.85, exemplary damages of $300.00, and the filing fee of $20.44. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought name suppression but is not entitled to an order as her defence to the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776959 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 15 View Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776959 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 15 View Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions