What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4811338?

The tribunal order states: Hongying Higgs must pay Nicodah Johnson $1,035.86 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4811338?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Flea Treatment And Rent Refund: $772.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $371.45 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $385.71 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $406.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4811338?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4811338?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10731434-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4811338?

The tribunal order states: Hongying Higgs must pay Nicodah Johnson $1,035.86 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4811338?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Flea Treatment And Rent Refund: $772.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $371.45 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $385.71 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $406.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4811338?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4811338?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10731434-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

133 Tancred Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4811338 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4811338 — net $1,035.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$406.40		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Lawn repair	$300.00		Lawn repair
Carpet damage	$600.00		Carpet damage
Window repairs	$371.45		Window repairs
Flea treatment and rent refund	$772.00		Flea treatment and rent refund
Rent refund		$385.71	Rent refund
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with bond		$300.00	Failure to comply with bond
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment		$2,000.00	Quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Exemplary damages - quiet enjoyment		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - quiet enjoyment
Total award	$2,649.85	$3,685.71
Net award		$1,035.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,035.86

Order

Hongying Higgs must pay Nicodah Johnson $1,035.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,350.00 (5552440-001) to Nicodah Johnson immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and payment of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of her quiet enjoyment and failure by the landlord to maintain the premises, exemplary damages for failure to comply with bond obligations, a rent repayment for unlawfully increasing the rent, payment of the bond and payment of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression. Background
This tenancy began in October 2021 for an initial four-month fixed term. The landlord sent the tenant a new tenancy agreement for a one-year fixed term at the end of the first fixed term. The new agreement was at a higher rent. The tenant did not sign the agreement, but she paid the higher rent.
Towards the end of the tenancy, and more than 12 months after the first increase, the landlord increased the rent again without giving the required 60 days notice.
During the tenancy the landlord wanted her cousin to move into the sleep out and the tenant agreed. He occupied the sleep out and used the facilities in the house from 8 October 2023 until the tenancy ended on 15 February 2024. Landlord’s Claims Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damages the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). Rent
The landlord did not produce a rent statement or any other evidence to prove the claimed $75 rent arrears. The claim is therefore dismissed. Rubbish
The claim for rubbish was agreed as ordered. Cleaning
The landlord produced limited evidence to support her claim for $580 cleaning costs. I accept that carpet and some upholstery needed cleaning and one or two other areas needed a modest amount of cleaning. In my assessment $200 is reasonable for the cleaning proved to be needed. Lawn Damage
The lawn was patchy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord put that down to the tenant’s dog. The tenant said that it was flooding of the lawn that occurred from time to time.
I find that it is more likely that the dog caused or contributed to the state of the lawn. I note though that the tenant is not the landlord’s gardener, and she is not responsible for maintaining the lawn in pristine condition. I note also that the landlord has not had the lawn repaired although she has relet the premises. The landlord’s husband has carried out some work to the premises and it is likely that he will attend to the lawn.
I assess compensation on that basis, and I have awarded $300 for lawn repair to cover material and compensation for the landlord’s husband’s time. Carpet Damage
The tenant accepted that carpet in the lounge was damaged during the tenancy from embers from the wood burner falling on it. I find that was careless damage.
The premises were insured for that type of damage and the landlord’s policy carries a $500 excess. I have therefore awarded that.
The landlord also claims for damage to the carpet in a bedroom. A photograph shows two spot stains on the carpet.
I don’t accept that the stains justify replacement of the carpet. That is not reasonable. As well, there is no evidence from the cleaners as to what was done to remove the stains. It may be that a specialist carpet cleaner could remove them. Either way, an award of $100 is reasonable compensation. The total award is therefore $600. Window Damage
Two windows were broken during the tenancy. One housed a cat flap and the other was in the lounge. The tenant denied responsibility for the damage.
The onus is on the tenant to prove that she was not responsible for the damage, and she has not done so. I have therefore awarded the claim in full. Fleas
The landlord said that when the new tenants moved in, they complained of an infestation of fleas in the premises. The landlord produced an invoice for flea treatment of the premises and evidence that she had allowed the new tenants a credit in the sum of $450 for the situation.
The tenant denied responsibility for a flea infestation, but I find that it was most likely the tenant’s dog that caused it due to not being flea treated. I have therefore awarded the claim in full. Tenant’s Claims Rent Increases
The landlord increased the rent twice. Once after four months and again just over a year later.
I find that the first increase was lawful because there was a new fixed term agreement at that time. The tenant had not signed the agreement, but she did receive it and she began paying the new rent. That amounts to a valid agreement. It is not a case of the landlord imposing a rent increase; the parties agreed it.
The second increase was made without any notice and so it was unlawful. One approach is to say that because there was no valid notice, there was no increase, and the rent should have remained as it was until the end of the tenancy. I prefer the approach that the tenant was entitled to 60 days notice and so she should not have to pay the increased rent until the 60 days were up. I have therefore awarded the tenant 60 days of the difference between the old rent and the new rent. Maintenance
The tenant’s evidence regarding the landlord’s failure to repair was not enough to prove the claims. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
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 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 lodged the bond well after it should have been lodged. I was not impressed with her explanation for that. She is, or should be, an experienced landlord and she should know better and have a system to ensure that bonds are lodged in time. An award of exemplary damages is required at a meaningful but not high level. I have awarded $300. Quiet Enjoyment
The 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".
In August 2023 the landlord told the tenant that she wanted her cousin to move into the sleepout at the premises and to have the use of the facilities in the house. The tenant reluctantly agreed. I accept that she and her partner were at a low ebb, and they were concerned that if they did not agree, they could lose the tenancy. I note that this was the tenant’s first experience as a tenant.
I find that the landlord put upon the tenant to allow her cousin to occupy the sleep out and to have the use of the house for the bathroom and cooking. I accept the tenant’s evidence that he expected to have and had full use of the house. The situation was made more difficult because the cousin did not speak English.
The arrangement was that the cousin would pay the tenant $80 per week for the accommodation and all expenses.
The landlord claimed that the arrangement was voluntary and that it suited the tenant. I don’t accept that. Near the end of the tenancy the tenant told the landlord that she did not want the cousin staying with them. The landlord’s response was to say that she could give the tenant three months notice to end the tenancy on the ground that her family member (her cousin) intended moving into the premises.
This was a threat to end the tenancy if the tenant did not comply. The landlord said that she had no intention of ending the tenancy on that ground. It follows that not only was this an unacceptable threat, but it was also an empty threat. It tells me that the landlord was wiling to go to extreme lengths to overcome the tenant’s reluctance to accept the cousin and it gives credibility to the tenant’s evidence that the arrangement was not voluntary.
The tenant and her partner were unhappy with the cousin living in the sleepout and using the house. They had a young child, and they were concerned about his safety with a stranger in the house. It also interfered with their privacy and their enjoyment of the tenancy. I find that it was a serious breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant is entitled to compensation for the breach. I have awarded $2,000 compensation. I note that I do not regard the $80 per week that the cousin was paying as a fair rate for use of the sleepout and the house. A rate of at least $150 would be more like a fair market rate. For the 18 weeks that the cousin was there, that alone equates to $1,260.
An award of exemplary damages is also required. This was an intentional act by the landlord. It suited her because the cousin was working for her at a nearby property at times. It did not suit the tenant. It amounted to harassment because the intrusion continued for 18 weeks. An award of $1,000 is appropriate. Filing Fee
Both sides have had some success and so I make no award of filing fees. Suppression
Given the result, neither party has a good reason for suppression, so their requests are declined. Result
After setting off the awards the landlord must pay the tenant $1,035.86. The bond must therefore be paid to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4811338 — net $1,035.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$406.40		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Lawn repair	$300.00		Lawn repair
Carpet damage	$600.00		Carpet damage
Window repairs	$371.45		Window repairs
Flea treatment and rent refund	$772.00		Flea treatment and rent refund
Rent refund		$385.71	Rent refund
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with bond		$300.00	Failure to comply with bond
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment		$2,000.00	Quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Exemplary damages - quiet enjoyment		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - quiet enjoyment
Total award	$2,649.85	$3,685.71
Net award		$1,035.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,035.86

Order

Hongying Higgs must pay Nicodah Johnson $1,035.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,350.00 (5552440-001) to Nicodah Johnson immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and payment of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of her quiet enjoyment and failure by the landlord to maintain the premises, exemplary damages for failure to comply with bond obligations, a rent repayment for unlawfully increasing the rent, payment of the bond and payment of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression. Background
This tenancy began in October 2021 for an initial four-month fixed term. The landlord sent the tenant a new tenancy agreement for a one-year fixed term at the end of the first fixed term. The new agreement was at a higher rent. The tenant did not sign the agreement, but she paid the higher rent.
Towards the end of the tenancy, and more than 12 months after the first increase, the landlord increased the rent again without giving the required 60 days notice.
During the tenancy the landlord wanted her cousin to move into the sleep out and the tenant agreed. He occupied the sleep out and used the facilities in the house from 8 October 2023 until the tenancy ended on 15 February 2024. Landlord’s Claims Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damages the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). Rent
The landlord did not produce a rent statement or any other evidence to prove the claimed $75 rent arrears. The claim is therefore dismissed. Rubbish
The claim for rubbish was agreed as ordered. Cleaning
The landlord produced limited evidence to support her claim for $580 cleaning costs. I accept that carpet and some upholstery needed cleaning and one or two other areas needed a modest amount of cleaning. In my assessment $200 is reasonable for the cleaning proved to be needed. Lawn Damage
The lawn was patchy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord put that down to the tenant’s dog. The tenant said that it was flooding of the lawn that occurred from time to time.
I find that it is more likely that the dog caused or contributed to the state of the lawn. I note though that the tenant is not the landlord’s gardener, and she is not responsible for maintaining the lawn in pristine condition. I note also that the landlord has not had the lawn repaired although she has relet the premises. The landlord’s husband has carried out some work to the premises and it is likely that he will attend to the lawn.
I assess compensation on that basis, and I have awarded $300 for lawn repair to cover material and compensation for the landlord’s husband’s time. Carpet Damage
The tenant accepted that carpet in the lounge was damaged during the tenancy from embers from the wood burner falling on it. I find that was careless damage.
The premises were insured for that type of damage and the landlord’s policy carries a $500 excess. I have therefore awarded that.
The landlord also claims for damage to the carpet in a bedroom. A photograph shows two spot stains on the carpet.
I don’t accept that the stains justify replacement of the carpet. That is not reasonable. As well, there is no evidence from the cleaners as to what was done to remove the stains. It may be that a specialist carpet cleaner could remove them. Either way, an award of $100 is reasonable compensation. The total award is therefore $600. Window Damage
Two windows were broken during the tenancy. One housed a cat flap and the other was in the lounge. The tenant denied responsibility for the damage.
The onus is on the tenant to prove that she was not responsible for the damage, and she has not done so. I have therefore awarded the claim in full. Fleas
The landlord said that when the new tenants moved in, they complained of an infestation of fleas in the premises. The landlord produced an invoice for flea treatment of the premises and evidence that she had allowed the new tenants a credit in the sum of $450 for the situation.
The tenant denied responsibility for a flea infestation, but I find that it was most likely the tenant’s dog that caused it due to not being flea treated. I have therefore awarded the claim in full. Tenant’s Claims Rent Increases
The landlord increased the rent twice. Once after four months and again just over a year later.
I find that the first increase was lawful because there was a new fixed term agreement at that time. The tenant had not signed the agreement, but she did receive it and she began paying the new rent. That amounts to a valid agreement. It is not a case of the landlord imposing a rent increase; the parties agreed it.
The second increase was made without any notice and so it was unlawful. One approach is to say that because there was no valid notice, there was no increase, and the rent should have remained as it was until the end of the tenancy. I prefer the approach that the tenant was entitled to 60 days notice and so she should not have to pay the increased rent until the 60 days were up. I have therefore awarded the tenant 60 days of the difference between the old rent and the new rent. Maintenance
The tenant’s evidence regarding the landlord’s failure to repair was not enough to prove the claims. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
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 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 lodged the bond well after it should have been lodged. I was not impressed with her explanation for that. She is, or should be, an experienced landlord and she should know better and have a system to ensure that bonds are lodged in time. An award of exemplary damages is required at a meaningful but not high level. I have awarded $300. Quiet Enjoyment
The 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".
In August 2023 the landlord told the tenant that she wanted her cousin to move into the sleepout at the premises and to have the use of the facilities in the house. The tenant reluctantly agreed. I accept that she and her partner were at a low ebb, and they were concerned that if they did not agree, they could lose the tenancy. I note that this was the tenant’s first experience as a tenant.
I find that the landlord put upon the tenant to allow her cousin to occupy the sleep out and to have the use of the house for the bathroom and cooking. I accept the tenant’s evidence that he expected to have and had full use of the house. The situation was made more difficult because the cousin did not speak English.
The arrangement was that the cousin would pay the tenant $80 per week for the accommodation and all expenses.
The landlord claimed that the arrangement was voluntary and that it suited the tenant. I don’t accept that. Near the end of the tenancy the tenant told the landlord that she did not want the cousin staying with them. The landlord’s response was to say that she could give the tenant three months notice to end the tenancy on the ground that her family member (her cousin) intended moving into the premises.
This was a threat to end the tenancy if the tenant did not comply. The landlord said that she had no intention of ending the tenancy on that ground. It follows that not only was this an unacceptable threat, but it was also an empty threat. It tells me that the landlord was wiling to go to extreme lengths to overcome the tenant’s reluctance to accept the cousin and it gives credibility to the tenant’s evidence that the arrangement was not voluntary.
The tenant and her partner were unhappy with the cousin living in the sleepout and using the house. They had a young child, and they were concerned about his safety with a stranger in the house. It also interfered with their privacy and their enjoyment of the tenancy. I find that it was a serious breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant is entitled to compensation for the breach. I have awarded $2,000 compensation. I note that I do not regard the $80 per week that the cousin was paying as a fair rate for use of the sleepout and the house. A rate of at least $150 would be more like a fair market rate. For the 18 weeks that the cousin was there, that alone equates to $1,260.
An award of exemplary damages is also required. This was an intentional act by the landlord. It suited her because the cousin was working for her at a nearby property at times. It did not suit the tenant. It amounted to harassment because the intrusion continued for 18 weeks. An award of $1,000 is appropriate. Filing Fee
Both sides have had some success and so I make no award of filing fees. Suppression
Given the result, neither party has a good reason for suppression, so their requests are declined. Result
After setting off the awards the landlord must pay the tenant $1,035.86. The bond must therefore be paid to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4811338 — Exemplary damages at 133 Tancred Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4811338 — Exemplary damages at 133 Tancred Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions