What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781637?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4781637?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781637?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10688073-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781637?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4781637?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781637?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10688073-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 16 Alpha Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4781637 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 23 May and 8 August 2024.
On 15 January 2024 the tenants applied to the Tribunal requesting refund of a bond of $4,500.00.
Further time was given to the tenants following the hearing to provide any relevant financial records. No further documentation was received by the deadline imposed. Background
A brief overview is given below: • The parties signed a tenancy agreement for a periodic residential tenancy starting on 20 November 2023. The rent was $750.00 per week. • A bond of 4 weeks’ rent ($3,000.00) was required to be paid together with 2 weeks’ rent in advance ($1,500.00). • The bond and rent in advance were paid to the landlord on 21 and 22 November 2023 by MSD (a total payment of $4,500.00). • The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord’s bank records show the majority of the funds were paid over the next few days to a different business account in the landlord’s name (the account beginning 70-0) leaving a nil balance by 26 November 2023. The landlord used this different account to pay rent monies to the owner of the premises. • The landlord’s bank records show MSD making the weekly rent payments ($375.00 for each tenant) on 29 November, 6 December, 13 December and 20 December 2023. The landlord’s bank records do not show the period after 4 January 2024.
The tenants say the move in costs of $4,500.00 paid on their behalf have not been refunded to them or to MSD. An email from MSD to the tenants dated 31 January 2024 confirmed that no bond refund had been received from the landlord.
The landlord says the following refund payments were made to the tenants (and MSD): • $1,250.00 by electronic transfer on 21 November 2023; • $250.00 by transfer on 22 November 2023; • $750.00 by transfer on 6 December 2023; • $750.00 by transfer on 13 December 2023; • $750.00 by transfer (to MSD) on 22 December 2023; • $350.00 by cash on 13 February 2024; • $350.00 by transfer on 21 February 2024.
The parties disputed whether the tenants moved into the premises. The tenants said that they lived in the premises from 20 November 2023 to 28 December 2023. The landlord said they did not move in, and this was the reason for the refunds.
The tenants provided a written statement from an individual who both parties acknowledged as the owner of the premises. The owner states that the tenants rented a room at his address for a month commencing the week of 21 December 2023 (this is probably an error; the tenancy started on 21 November). Analysis
There is support for some of the refund payments claimed by the landlord: • There is a withdrawal identified on the landlord’s bank statements of $1,250.00 on 21 November 2023. The statements do not provide any reference or details of the payee. One of the screenshots of her account provided by the landlord shows this as a transfer to the 70-0 account (i.e., to the landlord’s own account). • There is a screenshot from the landlord’s phone which appears to show a payment of $750.00 to the tenant on 21 November 2023. However, this is not shown on the bank statements. • The bank records identify a withdrawal of $250.00 on 22 November 2023 with reference 920002. There is a screenshot from the landlord’s phone which appears to show this as a payment to the tenant. • A payment of $750.00 is shown on the bank records on 29 November 2023 with reference 920002. Again, there is a screenshot purporting to show a payment to the tenant. • Two payments of $750.00 are shown on the bank records on 6 and 13 December 2023 with reference 920002 and 920001 respectively (the landlord said these were the references given to her by the tenant). I can find no additional support for these payments in the documents provided. • There is an email from MSD to the landlord dated 27 May 2024 which confirms MSD received a refund payment of $750.00 on 22 December 2023. This payment is not shown in the landlord’s accounts (the landlord said she used a different bank account for the payment). • The landlord said she refunded $350.00 on 13 February 2024 in cash. I can find no support for this payment in the documents provided. • The landlord said she refunded $350.00 on 21 February 2024. There is a screenshot purporting to show a payment to the tenant and reference to the payment in text messages.
The significant evidential difficulties in this case would have been avoided if the bond had been lodged with the Bond Centre, as the landlord was required to do by law. It is an “unlawful act” to fail to lodge the bond and exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded. However, exemplary damages were not claimed.
The analysis above shows that there is support for payments to the tenant (i.e., bank debits in the accounts that can be cross-referred to screenshots of payments from the landlord’s phone) totalling $1,750.00.
Accepting that payments using reference numbers 920001 and 920002 were also payments to the tenant, this increases to $3,250.00. There is sufficient support for a payment of $350.00 on 21 February 2024 in the text messages and a screenshot from the landlord’s phone. This means the total amount refunded was $3,600.00.
There were no financial records provided by the tenants to either corroborate or contradict the landlord’s evidence, at least in part because these records were said to be irretrievable.
The evidence from the tenants and the owner was to the effect that the tenants lived at the premises for a month or so. It is difficult to understand why the tenants should be refunded all their rental payments if they lived at the premises.
The tenants lived at the premises from 20 November 2023 to 28 December 2023 (5 weeks and 4 days). The total rent due was $4,178.57. The landlord’s bank records show rent payments by MSD totalling $4,500.00. It follows that the tenants overpaid the rent by $321.43. However, they were also refunded $600.00 more than the bond.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the bond money has been refunded and there has been no overpayment of rent. Name suppression
The tenants sought name suppression. However, their application has not been successful. There is some public interest in this case given the failure to lodge the bond and the difficulties which followed. I decline to award suppression to either party.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 23 May and 8 August 2024.
On 15 January 2024 the tenants applied to the Tribunal requesting refund of a bond of $4,500.00.
Further time was given to the tenants following the hearing to provide any relevant financial records. No further documentation was received by the deadline imposed. Background
A brief overview is given below: • The parties signed a tenancy agreement for a periodic residential tenancy starting on 20 November 2023. The rent was $750.00 per week. • A bond of 4 weeks’ rent ($3,000.00) was required to be paid together with 2 weeks’ rent in advance ($1,500.00). • The bond and rent in advance were paid to the landlord on 21 and 22 November 2023 by MSD (a total payment of $4,500.00). • The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord’s bank records show the majority of the funds were paid over the next few days to a different business account in the landlord’s name (the account beginning 70-0) leaving a nil balance by 26 November 2023. The landlord used this different account to pay rent monies to the owner of the premises. • The landlord’s bank records show MSD making the weekly rent payments ($375.00 for each tenant) on 29 November, 6 December, 13 December and 20 December 2023. The landlord’s bank records do not show the period after 4 January 2024.
The tenants say the move in costs of $4,500.00 paid on their behalf have not been refunded to them or to MSD. An email from MSD to the tenants dated 31 January 2024 confirmed that no bond refund had been received from the landlord.
The landlord says the following refund payments were made to the tenants (and MSD): • $1,250.00 by electronic transfer on 21 November 2023; • $250.00 by transfer on 22 November 2023; • $750.00 by transfer on 6 December 2023; • $750.00 by transfer on 13 December 2023; • $750.00 by transfer (to MSD) on 22 December 2023; • $350.00 by cash on 13 February 2024; • $350.00 by transfer on 21 February 2024.
The parties disputed whether the tenants moved into the premises. The tenants said that they lived in the premises from 20 November 2023 to 28 December 2023. The landlord said they did not move in, and this was the reason for the refunds.
The tenants provided a written statement from an individual who both parties acknowledged as the owner of the premises. The owner states that the tenants rented a room at his address for a month commencing the week of 21 December 2023 (this is probably an error; the tenancy started on 21 November). Analysis
There is support for some of the refund payments claimed by the landlord: • There is a withdrawal identified on the landlord’s bank statements of $1,250.00 on 21 November 2023. The statements do not provide any reference or details of the payee. One of the screenshots of her account provided by the landlord shows this as a transfer to the 70-0 account (i.e., to the landlord’s own account). • There is a screenshot from the landlord’s phone which appears to show a payment of $750.00 to the tenant on 21 November 2023. However, this is not shown on the bank statements. • The bank records identify a withdrawal of $250.00 on 22 November 2023 with reference 920002. There is a screenshot from the landlord’s phone which appears to show this as a payment to the tenant. • A payment of $750.00 is shown on the bank records on 29 November 2023 with reference 920002. Again, there is a screenshot purporting to show a payment to the tenant. • Two payments of $750.00 are shown on the bank records on 6 and 13 December 2023 with reference 920002 and 920001 respectively (the landlord said these were the references given to her by the tenant). I can find no additional support for these payments in the documents provided. • There is an email from MSD to the landlord dated 27 May 2024 which confirms MSD received a refund payment of $750.00 on 22 December 2023. This payment is not shown in the landlord’s accounts (the landlord said she used a different bank account for the payment). • The landlord said she refunded $350.00 on 13 February 2024 in cash. I can find no support for this payment in the documents provided. • The landlord said she refunded $350.00 on 21 February 2024. There is a screenshot purporting to show a payment to the tenant and reference to the payment in text messages.
The significant evidential difficulties in this case would have been avoided if the bond had been lodged with the Bond Centre, as the landlord was required to do by law. It is an “unlawful act” to fail to lodge the bond and exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded. However, exemplary damages were not claimed.
The analysis above shows that there is support for payments to the tenant (i.e., bank debits in the accounts that can be cross-referred to screenshots of payments from the landlord’s phone) totalling $1,750.00.
Accepting that payments using reference numbers 920001 and 920002 were also payments to the tenant, this increases to $3,250.00. There is sufficient support for a payment of $350.00 on 21 February 2024 in the text messages and a screenshot from the landlord’s phone. This means the total amount refunded was $3,600.00.
There were no financial records provided by the tenants to either corroborate or contradict the landlord’s evidence, at least in part because these records were said to be irretrievable.
The evidence from the tenants and the owner was to the effect that the tenants lived at the premises for a month or so. It is difficult to understand why the tenants should be refunded all their rental payments if they lived at the premises.
The tenants lived at the premises from 20 November 2023 to 28 December 2023 (5 weeks and 4 days). The total rent due was $4,178.57. The landlord’s bank records show rent payments by MSD totalling $4,500.00. It follows that the tenants overpaid the rent by $321.43. However, they were also refunded $600.00 more than the bond.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the bond money has been refunded and there has been no overpayment of rent. Name suppression
The tenants sought name suppression. However, their application has not been successful. There is some public interest in this case given the failure to lodge the bond and the difficulties which followed. I decline to award suppression to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781637 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 16 Alpha Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781637 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 16 Alpha Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions