What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4852800?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 to Mcrf Limited immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4852800?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4852800 D…: $8,241.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $597.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852800?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10613287-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4852800?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 to Mcrf Limited immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4852800?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4852800 D…: $8,241.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $597.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852800?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10613287-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42A McLeavey Drive, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4852800 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852800 — net $7,338.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4852800 dated 29/05/2024	$8,241.87		Previous order application 4852800 dated 29/05/2024
Window repairs	$597.00		Window repairs
Exemplary damages: bond		$250.00	bond
Exemplary damages: insurance statement		$250.00	insurance statement
Total award	$8,838.87	$500.00
Net award	$7,338.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,338.87

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852800 — net $7,338.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4852800 dated 29/05/2024	$8,241.87		Previous order application 4852800 dated 29/05/2024
Window repairs	$597.00		Window repairs
Exemplary damages: bond		$250.00	bond
Exemplary damages: insurance statement		$250.00	insurance statement
Total award	$8,838.87	$500.00
Net award	$7,338.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,338.87

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 to Mcrf Limited immediately.
The landlord is to pay the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages. This sum is to be deducted from the total payable by the tenant to the landlord as set out in the table below.
The tenant’s other claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
The tenant must pay the landlord $7,338.87 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord’s application was for arrears of rent. After discussion the parties agreed that the amount payable was the $8,241.87 set out in the Tribunal’s Order dated 29 May 2024.
The parties also agreed that the tenant was responsible for damage to two windows and the parties agreed that the tenant is to pay the landlord $597.00 in compensation.
The landlord advised that it had further claims for compensation against the tenant. These were not included in the landlord’s application and the tenant did not consent to the Tribunal considering them. In addition, there was no evidence before the Tribunal on which a decision could have been made.
The tenant’s application is for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s: a. Failure to lodge the bond. See section 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Failure to provide smoke alarms. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. c. Failure to provide an insurance statement in the Tenancy Agreement (“TA”). See section 13A(1A) RTA. d. Unlawful entry of the property. See section 48 RTA. e. Terminating the tenancy without grounds. See section 60AA RTA. f. Failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). See section 45(1)(bb) RTA. g. Failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) RTA requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. I have determined the tenant’s application with this requirement in mind. Background
The parties agreed that the tenant moved into the property prior to a TA being signed because the tenant obtained the key from a friend. The parties had agreed on a rent of $600.00 per week.
The landlord gave evidence that he realised that the property would not comply with the HHS and that there were works required.
The parties agreed that the rent be reduced to $500.00 per week to reflect the condition of the property and that the tenant would carry out some work on the property.
There is a text exchange in evidence from 7 November 2023 as follows: LL: “If you use the place as is, make it available for open homes clean and tidy, how about you pay $550 p.w.” T: “500 and we will fix and replace all that’s broken” LL: “What needs doing” T: “Both smoke alarms plus another put in sleep out”
The text goes on to list a number of items requiring repair.
The TA records: “Property as is condition – not Healthy Homes compliant. Property is for sale and is to be available clean and tidy for open homes... 90 day notice served for vacant possession today.”
The landlord gave evidence which is supported by correspondence between the parties that the property was to be put on the market and that a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy under section 51(2) RTA was included as part of the TA.
The landlord acknowledged that it later agreed to the tenant staying on in the property until it was sold on the basis that the tenant kept up to date with the rent.
The tenancy was eventually terminated by Order of the Tribunal when the tenant was 16 weeks in arrears and the landlord was at last able to obtain possession of the premises.
The parties agreed that the tenant finally moved out on 12 June 2024. Failure to lodge the bond
The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A 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 landlord claimed that he did not recognise that the payment received was made by WINZ in payment of the bond. He claimed that the tenant was already in rent arrears and so it was applied to rent.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord received the bond and did not pay it to the Bond Centre until directed by the Tribunal.
It is in the public interest that landlord’s pay bond money to the Bond Centre and do not retain it in their private accounts. The money belongs to the tenant and needs to be held by the Bond Centre until both parties agree to its release or the Tribunal makes an order regarding its payment.
There were no consequences to the tenant in the landlord’s failure to pay the bond to the Bond Centre. The landlord did so immediately the Tribunal directed it to do so.
It is appropriate that the landlord pay exemplary damages to the tenant for its failure to pay the bond to the Bond Centre. Smoke alarms
The landlord acknowledged that the property did not have the appropriate smoke alarms. He explained that the provision of smoke alarms was one of the tasks required of the tenant for the landlord reducing the rent.
The tenant confirmed that this was the parties’ agreement and that the smoke alarms were installed by her. The text evidence cited above confirms this.
In these circumstances, the landlord did not have the required intent to commit the unlawful act. It would also be unjust in these circumstances to award exemplary damages or compensation against the landlord. Having assumed the responsibility of providing the smoke alarms, the tenant is estopped from now seeking compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant’s claims in relation to the smoke alarms are dismissed. Insurance statement
Under section 13A(2) RTA the landlord must supply an insurance statement in the TA. The landlord has committed an unlawful act. The maximum exemplary damages payable is $900.00. See section 13A (1F)(a) RTA and Schedule 1A 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The District Court has stated that landlord is deemed to know the law and that Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law. The landlord is therefore deemed to know of its obligations under the RTA and the failure to complete the insurance statement is therefore deemed to be intentional.
The landlord’s failure had no consequences for the tenant but it is in the public interest that landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA. An award of exemplary damages at the lower end is appropriate. Unlawful entry
The tenant acknowledged that on her evidence, her claim for unlawful entry must fail because the landlord did not enter the property, but only came to the door of the property.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Termination without grounds
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not intend to sell the property when it gave notice under section 51(2) RTA. She acknowledged that the landlord’s agent brought a prospective buyer to the property before Christmas 2023, but noted that the property was not put on the market.
The text exchange of 7 November 2023 referred to above and the terms of the TA confirm that it was the landlord’s intention to have open homes during the tenancy and that the property be placed on the market.
The landlord advised that due to a need to settle relationship property matters and because of difficulties with another tenancy in another property, it intended to sell this property. He confirmed that its agent showed a prospective buyer through the property prior to Christmas 2023. He further advised that once difficulties arose with the tenant, its real estate agent advised it not to place the property on the market until the tenant had vacated the property. The landlord confirmed that the property was now on the market.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time the landlord issued the notice to terminate, it did not have a genuine intention to sell the property.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Failure to comply with the HHS
It is clear from the evidence that the parties knew that: a. The premises did not comply with the HHS. b. The landlord was not going to bring the property up to the HHS. c. The tenancy was to end at the expiry of the 90-day notice so that the landlord would not be under an obligation to comply with the HHS during the tenancy. d. The rent was reduced to reflect the fact that the property did not comply with the HHS and that the tenancy would be for a short period.
Out of kindness and consideration for the tenant’s circumstances, despite the tenant being in rent arrears at the time and throughout the tenancy, the landlord allowed the tenant to remain in the property after the expiry of the 90-day notice period. The tenant therefore occupied the premises after the 120-day period during which landlord had to bring the property up to the HHS.
While the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not complying with the HHS during the period of the tenancy after the 90-day period had expired, it was manoeuvred into this position by the tenant not moving out at the end of the 90- day period. The tenant is estopped from claiming compensation and exemplary damages because she has caused the situation to arise. The landlord would not have been under any obligation to comply with the HHS if the tenant had vacated in accordance with the landlord’s notice to terminate. It would not be just to award exemplary damages in the particular circumstances of this case.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed. Failure to maintain
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant made it clear at the hearing that her claim related specifically to the draughtiness and coldness of the house.
She gave evidence that the window latches required repair and that the windows and doors were draughty. She provided letters from a medical practitioner regarding her and her children’s health during the time they lived in the property. However, there was no evidence that the health practitioner had visited the property or had causally linked the condition of the property to the health issues.
The landlord advised that it had not been advised at any time during the tenancy that the tenant required it make these repairs. The tenant did not provide any corroborative evidence that she had notified the landlord that these repairs were required.
The obligation of the landlord under section 45(1)(b) RTA corresponds with that of the tenant under section 40(1)(d) RTA, which requires the tenant to notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of damage or need for repairs.
It is not appropriate to award the tenant compensation for the state of the property when the landlord had already reduced the rent by $100.00 per week or 17%.
The Tribunal also notes the tenant’s agreement by text to “fix and replace all that’s broken” in exchange for the reduced rent.
The tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that she notified the landlord of the need for repair or that she had not accepted responsibility for the repair.
The tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages are therefore dismissed. Suppression
As the tenant has not substantially succeeded in her application as required by section 95A RTA, it is not appropriate that her name be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852800 — Property damage at 42A McLeavey Drive, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852800 — Property damage at 42A McLeavey Drive, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions