What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4849562?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the tenancy of Shelley Louise Mosen at 129B Rangitane Road, RD

How much money was awarded in case 4849562?

Breach Of Quiet Enjoyment - Attempts…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849562?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849562?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10372473-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4849562?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the tenancy of Shelley Louise Mosen at 129B Rangitane Road, RD

How much money was awarded in case 4849562?

Breach Of Quiet Enjoyment - Attempts…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849562?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849562?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10372473-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

129B Rangitane Road, RD 1, Kerikeri 0294 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4849562 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849562 — net $1,050.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide tenancy agreement, healthy homes statement, and insurance statement	$500.00	Failure to provide tenancy agreement, healthy homes statement, and insurance statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Breach of quiet enjoyment - attempts to terminate tenancy	$300.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment - attempts to terminate tenancy
Net award	$1,050.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,050.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849562 — net $1,050.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide tenancy agreement, healthy homes statement, and insurance statement	$500.00	Failure to provide tenancy agreement, healthy homes statement, and insurance statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Breach of quiet enjoyment - attempts to terminate tenancy	$300.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment - attempts to terminate tenancy
Net award	$1,050.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,050.00

Order

By consent, the tenancy of Shelley Louise Mosen at 129B Rangitane Road, RD 1, Kerikeri 0294 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kristan Lopes, at
00am on Tuesday 4 June 2024.
Kristan Lopes must pay Shelley Louise Mosen $1,050.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

On 22 April 2024 I made an order stating that Ms Mosen is in a tenancy that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to.
On 24 April, Ms Lopes filed an application seeking an order for possession and exemplary damages for refusal of entry.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 23 May 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Tenant application Failure to provide tenancy agreement
The landlord must provide the tenancy with a written tenancy agreement on or before the commencement of the tenancy 1 . The landlord must sign the agreement. The agreement must contain certain information, including a healthy homes statement and an insulation statement 2 .
Failure to provide a written tenancy agreement is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $750 can apply.
It is also an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to provide a healthy homes statement or an insulation statement. Exemplary damages of up to $750.00 can apply for each of those unlawful acts.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to 3 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
I accept that Ms Lopes did not provide a written tenancy agreement because she did not understand that Ms Mosen was a tenant. She understood that it was a boarding / house sharing arrangement.
It would be unjust to make separate awards of exemplary damages for the failure to provide a tenancy agreement, a healthy homes statement, and an insurance statement. They are essentially the same breach in this instance.
Ms Lopes misunderstanding of the arrangement, and therefore of her obligations as a landlord, caused Ms Mosen distress. It forced Ms Mosen into a position where she had to file this application to assert her rights as a tenant.
It is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages, but at the lower end of the scale. 1 Section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 13A RTA 3 Section 109 RTA
I will award $500.00. Failure to lodge bond with the Bond Centre
Similar considerations apply under this heading. Ms Lopes received a bond of $300.00 from Ms Mosen at the start of the tenancy, in accordance with her usual practice. She did not lodge it with the Bond Centre because she did not understand that she had to. At the hearing Ms Lopes confirmed that she is still safely holding the bond.
Failure to lodge the bond is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 can apply.
I will award exemplary damages of $250.00. Unlawful and / or retaliatory notice(s) of termination
Before 22 April, Ms Lopes made several efforts to evict Ms Lopes at short notice, on the understanding that she was able to do so because it was a boarding / house sharing arrangement and not a tenancy.
After the Tribunal order on 22 April, Ms Lopes accepted that the Residential Tenancies Act applies and the only further termination notice that she issued was a 63-day notice, issued on 24 April. The stated reason for termination in that notice is that the landlord requires the premises as a place of residence for a member of her family.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to issue a termination notice “knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice” 4 .
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to issue a notice of termination that is retaliatory 5 . A termination notice is retaliatory “if, in giving the notice, the landlord is motivated wholly or partly by the exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by this or by any other Act”.
At the hearing, Ms Lopes said that she needs the premises for her eldest son to move in to. Ms Lopes explained the reasons for this at the hearing.
Ms Mosen was suspicious of the notice, given Ms Lopes’ previous attempts to evict her without reason, and given that the notice came after she began asserting her rights as a tenant.
Ms Mosen also provided a screenshot of a comment on Facebook post where Ms Lopes stated “the 2 bedm apartment will be available very soon”. 4 Section 60AA RTA 5 Section 54 RTA
I acknowledge the reasons why Ms Mosen questioned the motivation for the notice.
However, Ms Lopes’ explanation of why she needs the premises for her eldest son was clear and persuasive. I accept that explanation, and therefore I find that the notice is not retaliatory.
Ms Lopes’ attempts to evict Ms Mosen prior to 22 April were not retaliatory notices. A retaliatory notice is “a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51” 6 . They were also not notices that Ms Lopes issued knowing that she had no legal right to terminate the tenancy. Ms Lopes genuine believed that she did have a legal right to terminate the “tenancy”.
However, those notices did cause an interference with Ms Mosen’s peace, comfort, and privacy 7 . The notices should not have been issued, and they put Ms Mosen in a difficult position.
I will award compensation of $300.00 for this unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy. Landlord application Possession
For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the 24 April notice was not unlawful or retaliatory. It was also formally valid.
The 24 April notice was therefore an effective notice to terminate the tenancy on 30 June 2024.
At the hearing the parties reached an agreement to end the tenancy on 4 June. Therefore, I have made a termination and possession order for 4 June, by consent. Refusal of entry
Landlords may only enter the premises in certain circumstances 8 .
Landlords may enter for the purpose of carrying out an inspection. Landlords must give tenant’s 48-hours’ notice of their intended inspection 9 .
If a tenant refuses to allow the landlord entry into the premises, in circumstances where the landlord had a legal right to enter, that is an unlawful act 10 . Exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 can apply. 6 Section 54(1) RTA 7 Section 38(1) RTA 8 Section 48 RTA 9 Section 48(2)(b) RTA
On Tuesday 23 April, Ms Lopes sent Ms Mosen an email stating: Since I have found out that what I thought was a reasonable situation from Mr Blake the adjudicator isn’t, and I’m now aware of that fact. I suggest we remedy that immediately with a formal tenancy agreement. He has rendered our verbal agreement null and void so if I am to ‘rent’ the bottom sleepout then it needs to be done formally as if I would if I were to ‘rent’ it. So I understand that 48 hours notice to approach the premises is minimum so lets say 4.30pm on Thursday 23 April 2024? Good lets a house inspection photos and the tenancy agreement at the same time? I am probably going to remove some of the objects from the ‘rental’ [...]
Ms Mosen replied, stating: There is no need for you to come here, I just want to be left to enjoy my space without constant messaging/emails/calls/texts from you. You have not given me notice of a house inspection – I assume you mean you want to take photos of the apartment to go with your tenancy agreement idea. [...] Also, Thursday is not the 23 rd April
That Thursday was in fact Anzac Day, the 25 th of April.
I agree with Ms Mosen’s view that Ms Lopes’ email on 25 April was not an effective notice of an inspection.
It states various reasons why Ms Lopes wanted to “approach the premises”. It was not necessary for Ms Lopes to approach or enter the premises to sign a tenancy agreement, and (from a tenancy law perspective) she had no right to enter the premises to remove chattels. Her statement “Good lets a house inspection photos and the tenancy agreement at the same time” is, as Ms Mosen points out, ambiguous and unclear.
Therefore, Ms Lopes did not have a right to enter the premises on 25 April, so Ms Mosen’s refusal was lawful, and there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages. Outcome
The tenancy will end on 4 June 2024.
Ms Lopes is to pay Ms Mosen $1,050.00 calculated per the table above. 10 Section 48(4)(b) RTA
Each party will bear its own cost of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849562 — Healthy homes at 129B Rangitane Road, RD 1, Kerikeri 0294

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849562 — Healthy homes at 129B Rangitane Road, RD 1, Kerikeri 0294

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