What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4843142?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Kanthi must pay Mokonuiarangi Bennett and Tiernan Phoebe Manukura

How much money was awarded in case 4843142?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843142?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10561153-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4843142?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Kanthi must pay Mokonuiarangi Bennett and Tiernan Phoebe Manukura

How much money was awarded in case 4843142?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843142?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10561153-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

160 Richmond Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4843142 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4843142 — net $1,011.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund costs taken from bond	$491.48	Refund costs taken from bond
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy	$500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,011.92
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,011.92

Both parties attended the hearing. Background

On 15 May 2024, following a telephone case conference, the Tribunal decided that this tenancy was a residential tenancy that fell under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The Tribunal adjourned the applications so the substantive matters could be heard.

I held a hearing today on the tenants’ application. There are no remaining issues to be decided on the landlord’s application. The landlord’s application related solely to the status of the tenancy – was it an excluded flatmate arrangement as he says it was? As I have noted, the Tribunal has already determined that issue.

The tenancy started on 29 April 2022 and ended on 9 February 2024. The tenants’ application

The tenants seek a refund of costs the landlord deducted from the bond at the end of the tenancy and compensation for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to not having the protections provided to tenants under the RTA. Costs taken from the bond

Because the landlord considered the tenancy to be a flatmate arrangement, he required the payment of a bond ($1,650.00) but did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. Had the tenancy been a flatmate arrangement he would have had no obligation to lodge the bond, but it was not a flatmate arrangement for the reasons set out by the Tribunal in its order dated 15 May 2024.

The landlord did not have lawful authority to simply deduct costs from the bond, without clear agreement by the tenants. The landlord said he had that agreement; the tenants say he did not.

When a bond dispute arises on a residential tenancy, the Bond Centre holds the bond until (usually) a Tribunal order makes a direction about who the bond is to be paid to.

And when a bond dispute arises, section 22B(2) RTA requires the landlord to file a counterclaim (a cross application) for costs from the bond.

Here, there is no cross application for costs from the bond. The landlord’s application was confined to the jurisdictional issue of the status of the tenancy.

The landlord deducted costs of $491.48 from the bond and refunded $1,158.52 to the tenants.

I order that the landlord now pay the amount he took from the bond to the tenants. He had neither lawful authority, nor clear agreement, to take those costs. Compensation

The tenants’ application does not seek exemplary damages from the landlord for alleged unlawful acts, so I need not consider the law concerning the awarding of exemplary damages.

The tenants seek compensation for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy by not having the protections of the RTA during the tenancy because the landlord deemed it to be a flatmate arrangement.

They were unaware of the correct status of the tenancy until they took advice from Tenancy Services. That resulted in their application and the landlord’s cross application for a declaration of the status of the tenancy.

The tenants said in evidence that there was no heating at the premises, and there were drafts through the lounge windows, the bathroom window and a window in a bedroom. They said that rain came through the front door.

The landlord agreed there was no heating. He said because the premises were upstairs premises, they were warm; and because the arrangement was one of flatmates, he did not provide any heating source. He said there was a door stop when the tenants moved in, but it was missing at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord repeatedly said that the tenants knew and accepted that the arrangement was a flatmate arrangement. He said he had a good relationship with the tenants whom he knew well. He told them they needed to work as a team.

Having heard from the parties I do not find that the landlord acted intentionally to avoid the provisions of the RTA. He genuinely believed that the arrangement was a flatmate arrangement. But it was not, for the reasons set out in the Tribunal’s order dated 15 May 2024. Though the landlord does not accept that finding, the order remains unless there is a successful rehearing or an appeal.

The tenants suffered some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the status of the tenancy not being correct. That meant their bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre; the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS); and they did not know they could issue breach notices for repair and maintenance issues.

No doubt, the landlord feels aggrieved because he considers he knew the tenants and did what he could to make the premises available to them. He mentioned other matters of a domestic nature about the tenants that are not directly relevant to this application.

I find that the tenants are entitled to some, but limited, compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy they experienced because of the landlord’s decision to regard the tenancy as a flatmate arrangement, when clearly it was not.

I award the tenants compensation of $500.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy for breaches by the landlord arising from his misguided decision to regard the tenancy as one between the tenants and him as flatmates.

I have limited the award of compensation for 2 reasons: the landlord did not act with intent or malice; he was simply misguided. And the tenants’ losses were relatively minor. The Tribunal has remedied the deduction of costs from the bond by awarding those costs to them. Result

The landlord will pay the tenants $1,011.92 comprising $491.48 as a refund of costs taken from the bond; compensation of $500.00; and the filing fee on the tenants’ successful application of $20.44. Name suppression

The tenants did not seek a name suppression order.

The landlord sought a name suppression order. I make no order as his defence to the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4843142 — net $1,011.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund costs taken from bond	$491.48	Refund costs taken from bond
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy	$500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,011.92
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,011.92