What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4824719?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4824719?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824719?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10441837-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4824719?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4824719?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824719?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10441837-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

110 Talbot Street, Geraldine, Geraldine 7930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4824719 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant claimed that the landlord breached its obligations on receipt of the bond and entered the premises without the correct notice (or without consent). The tenant sought exemplary damages for the alleged breaches.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant had also applied for refund of the bond, but that issue had been resolved before the hearing. Bond Lodgement
The tenant claims that 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 RTA.
The landlord conceded that it did not lodge the bond within 23 working days. The bond was paid on 28 December 2022 and was lodged with the Bond Centre on 1 March 2023. It should have been lodged on 8 February 2023. See s2 RTA for definition of working days.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act, as defined by the RTA.
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).
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen.
Mrs Coleman gave evidence of her circumstances when she received the bond, including caring for and supporting her sister who was terminally ill. She also said that this was her first time being a landlord and had not appreciated the importance of lodging the bond within 23 working days. She realised that she had not lodged the bond when she was catching up on some paperwork and immediately sent it to the bond centre. It was 15 working days late.
The tenant said that the landlord was carryout other functions such as inspections during this time frame and so should have lodged the bond within time.
I find that the failure to lodge the bond within time was not an intentional act by the landlord in this instance. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Entering Premises
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA 1986.
It is important to note that under s48 “premises” does not include land or facilities. See s48(7) RTA. So, the tenant must establish that the landlord entered the house, not just the grounds, for the Tribunal to consider an award of exemplary damages under this section.
The tenant claimed the landlord had allowed a neighbour to enter onto the property for a chat while the landlord was gardening. The landlord had given adequate notice that it would be gardening. The tenant claimed that the neighbour entering on to the property made her uncomfortable. The landlord said they did not invite the neighbour, he simply entered onto the property for a quick chat, and then left.
Neither the landlord nor the neighbour entered the premises, so there is no breach of s48 RTA.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord must have entered the premises in the final week of the tenancy, to carry out Methamphetamine testing, without notice. The landlord said that she did not. Her evidence was that the tenancy ended on 28 February 2024 and the end of tenancy testing was done on 29 February 2024, the same day as the final inspection of the premises.
There is no evidence that the landlord entered the premises before the end of the tenancy. The applications under s48 RTA are dismissed.
For completeness, I have also considered whether either the visit by the neighbour or the end of tenancy testing amount to breaches of the landlord’s obligations under s38 RTA.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I accept that the landlord did not invite the neighbour or instigate his visit. Even if the landlord had invited him onto the section, it would not give rise to a claim for exemplary damages. There was no evidence to suggest any pattern of behaviour by the landlord bringing third parties onto the property when gardening.
The tenant claimed the landlord’s refusal to release the bond until it had received the results of Methamphetamine testing was accusatory and stressful, especially in circumstances where the bond had been lodged late. The tenant did not believe there had been proper recognition or acknowledgement of this treatment at the hearing, or by the landlord.
Mrs Coleman’s evidence was that she was a first-time landlord. She took advice from the Tenancy Services website recommending both ingoing and outgoing Methamphetamine testing, to provide a benchmark in the event of any issues. She said that she advised the tenant on 29 February that the test was being done and the bond would be released on receipt of a satisfactory test result, which was – 8 days later.
I do not find anything in the landlord’s approach that could amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The landlord prudently followed recommended testing guidelines. There was nothing accusatory or prejudicial in that. The results were satisfactory, and the bond was promptly released.
The claims are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824719 — Harassment at 110 Talbot Street, Geraldine, Geraldine 7930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824719 — Harassment at 110 Talbot Street, Geraldine, Geraldine 7930

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