What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4800937?

The tribunal order states: Preeti Phore must pay Tbt Property Management Limited and Dhruv Mehta

How much money was awarded in case 4800937?

Compensation: $448.20 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,250.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $211.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800937?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10212711-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4800937?

The tribunal order states: Preeti Phore must pay Tbt Property Management Limited and Dhruv Mehta

How much money was awarded in case 4800937?

Compensation: $448.20 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,250.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $211.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800937?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10212711-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13A Bartells Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4800937 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800937 — net $814.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5/11/2023	$3,250.71		Rent arrears to 5/11/2023
Water rates	$211.68		Water rates
Compensation reimburse internet and gas bottle charges		$448.20	Compensation reimburse internet and gas bottle charges
Total award	$3,462.39	$448.20
Net award	$814.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$814.19

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and water invoices and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. While I appreciate the tenant’s concern that the landlord sent incorrect invoices for a different meter, and agree this should not have occurred, I am satisfied that this was remedied within a reasonable timeframe, and the amount ordered is for water the tenant used at the property.

The amount ordered for rent arrears is proved by the rent summary provided and calculated until the end of the tenancy.

The tenants claim for a share of internet and gas bottle rentals is also successful. The invoices provided confirm the amounts owing and the landlord agreed they were liable for half of the charges.

The claim for exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond within the required timeframe is dismissed.

While entirely satisfied that the bond was not lodged for one year after it was paid and despite fully agreeing with the tenant that that state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory, before exemplary damages can be awarded the Tribunal must be satisfied the landlord intended to commit the unlawful act.

The property manager from Ray White, that acted for the owner at the beginning of the tenancy and took the bond has explained that it was not lodged due to an “administrative error.” She said the trust account unexpectedly required a second authoritative code from the internal banking directors. Three documented attempts to deposit the bond, were unsuccessful, resulting in the bond being temporarily held in an unknown account in the Trust system.

Because the agency did not manage the property directly, and the bond was lodged under the owner’s name, no confirmation was received, and it was only when the owner brought the issue to the agents notice that she became aware and contacted Tenancy Services to report the issue and immediately lodge the bond.

While I do not accept that the agent was not responsible for the breach, as she took the bond and did not lodge it, and ought to have known that was her responsibility. If she did not want to be responsible, she should have told the owner that and transferred the bond to him.

Despite this I am unable to find that the agent failed to lodge the bond intentionally. If the standard were carelessness or even negligence, I would find there was a breach, but it is the higher standard of intentionality that applies. This means I would have to find the agent deliberately and knowingly, decided having taken the bond, she was not going to lodge it. The evidence falls well short of this.

It was pleasing that the owner said Ray White had assured him they had better processes in place to ensure money unaccounted for in miscellaneous accounts is followed up.

It is anticipated that this means that having received a bond, the required confirmation from the bond centre that it has been lodged is also received before the issue is filed away.

Both parties paid filing fees both are partly successful so neither is ordered to reimburse the other the filing fee paid.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800937 — net $814.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5/11/2023	$3,250.71		Rent arrears to 5/11/2023
Water rates	$211.68		Water rates
Compensation reimburse internet and gas bottle charges		$448.20	Compensation reimburse internet and gas bottle charges
Total award	$3,462.39	$448.20
Net award	$814.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$814.19

Order

Preeti Phore must pay Tbt Property Management Limited and Dhruv Mehta $814.19 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6272859-004) to Tbt Property Management Limited and Dhruv Mehta immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and water invoices and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. While I appreciate the tenant’s concern that the landlord sent incorrect invoices for a different meter, and agree this should not have occurred, I am satisfied that this was remedied within a reasonable timeframe, and the amount ordered is for water the tenant used at the property.
The amount ordered for rent arrears is proved by the rent summary provided and calculated until the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claim for a share of internet and gas bottle rentals is also successful. The invoices provided confirm the amounts owing and the landlord agreed they were liable for half of the charges.
The claim for exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond within the required timeframe is dismissed.
While entirely satisfied that the bond was not lodged for one year after it was paid and despite fully agreeing with the tenant that that state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory, before exemplary damages can be awarded the Tribunal must be satisfied the landlord intended to commit the unlawful act.
The property manager from Ray White, that acted for the owner at the beginning of the tenancy and took the bond has explained that it was not lodged due to an “administrative error.” She said the trust account unexpectedly required a second authoritative code from the internal banking directors. Three documented attempts to deposit the bond, were unsuccessful, resulting in the bond being temporarily held in an unknown account in the Trust system.
Because the agency did not manage the property directly, and the bond was lodged under the owner’s name, no confirmation was received, and it was only when the owner brought the issue to the agents notice that she became aware and contacted Tenancy Services to report the issue and immediately lodge the bond.
While I do not accept that the agent was not responsible for the breach, as she took the bond and did not lodge it, and ought to have known that was her responsibility. If she did not want to be responsible, she should have told the owner that and transferred the bond to him.
Despite this I am unable to find that the agent failed to lodge the bond intentionally. If the standard were carelessness or even negligence, I would find there was a breach, but it is the higher standard of intentionality that applies. This means I would have to find the agent deliberately and knowingly, decided having taken the bond, she was not going to lodge it. The evidence falls well short of this.
It was pleasing that the owner said Ray White had assured him they had better processes in place to ensure money unaccounted for in miscellaneous accounts is followed up.
It is anticipated that this means that having received a bond, the required confirmation from the bond centre that it has been lodged is also received before the issue is filed away.
Both parties paid filing fees both are partly successful so neither is ordered to reimburse the other the filing fee paid.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800937 — Rent arrears at 13A Bartells Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800937 — Rent arrears at 13A Bartells Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions