What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4889361?

The tribunal order states: Toni Ellison to pay Paula Black $161.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4889361?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $721.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4889361?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4889361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10932960-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4889361?

The tribunal order states: Toni Ellison to pay Paula Black $161.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4889361?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $721.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4889361?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4889361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10932960-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

44 Hukutaia Road, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4889361 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4889361 — net $161.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 February 2024	$721.43		Rent arrears to 12 February 2024
Repairs	$240.00		Repairs
Exemplary damages - no written tenancy agreement		$150.00	Exemplary damages - no written tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages - bond not lodged		$250.00	Exemplary damages - bond not lodged
Exemplary damages - no receipts for rent		$150.00	Exemplary damages - no receipts for rent
Exemplary damages - failure to maintain		$250.00	Exemplary damages - failure to maintain
Total award	$961.43	$800.00
Net award	$161.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$161.43

Order

Toni Ellison to pay Paula Black $161.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $300.00 immediately apportioned as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Ellison (tenant) seeks the following: (i) Bond refund of $300.00 (ii) Compensation for an invalid rent increase. (iii) Exemplary damages for: - No written tenancy agreement. - Bond not lodged. - No rent receipts. - Failure to maintain the premises.
Ms Ellison withdrew her claim for harassment.
Ms Black (landlord) has applied for rent arrears and compensation for damages. Ms Black failed to file a cross application as previously ordered, but as Ms Ellison agreed the claims could be heard without this formality, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the cross application in full.
The onus is on each of the parties to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
By way of background, the Tribunal made an order on 23 August 2024 that this was not an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) therefore the Tribunal has full jurisdiction to hear and determine the respective claims.

Was the rent increase valid?

Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the landlord must not increase rent within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy.
Ms Ellison says she agreed to rent the premises at $300.00 per week commencing 6 October 2023. Ms Ellison says that Ms Black increased rent to $350.00 from 24 December 2023 because she had a friend stay over once or twice a week. Ms Ellison says that her friend was not living at the premises. Ms Ellison says she was unable to receive assistance from WINZ because of the rent increase (and lack of tenancy agreement).
Ms Black says that she told Ms Ellison rent would increase by $50.00 per week from 1 December 2023 because she had a friend staying on a regular basis. Ms Black says this increase was to cover additional power, gas, and water which was included with the rent, and the premises were advertised with double occupancy at $350.00 per week.
I find that the rent increase was invalid. Ms Black was unable to provide sufficient evidence that another person was living at the premises with Ms Ellison, nor that the power, gas and water used during this tenancy was more than usual for single occupancy.
However, I decline to make any award of compensation as Ms Ellison has failed to provide any evidence of loss.
This part of the claim is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

Ms Ellison claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Black did not provide a written agreement as she says she always considered this as a boarding type of arrangement.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
I find that Ms Black intentionally failed to provide a tenancy agreement; albeit she erroneously believed that Ms Ellison was her boarder. There is a high public interest in making sure that landlords provide a written tenancy agreement which records both parties’ full obligations under the contract. In these circumstances, I find it just to make an award of $150.00 exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Ms Ellison claims 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.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Black says did not lodge the bond because she believed she was not obligated to do.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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 bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limits to protect the tenants’ interests. Ms Black intentionally failed to lodge the bond. 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.
Bearing in mind that Ms Black lodged the bond when ordered to do so by the Tribunal, I consider exemplary damages at the low end of the scale to be a just and appropriate award in this case. I therefore make an award of $250.00 exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to provide receipts for rent?

Toni Ellison claims the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent paid in cash except for two receipts provided at the start of the tenancy. .
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Black says the payments were erratic, so she kept the receipts in her receipt book.
I the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords issue receipts immediately for any cash payments. Although I accept that Ms Black kept her own records, this does not negate her obligations to provide receipts to the tenant. The lack of receipts has contributed to confusion and distrust which could have been avoided.
Accordingly, I make an award of $150.00 exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to provide running water in the kitchenette?

Ms Ellison claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Regulation 7(2)(a) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provides that There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water.
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.
Ms Black does not dispute there is no sink or tap in the kitchenette, but she says there is a sink close by in the adjoining bathroom, in addition to the vanity.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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.
I find that Ms Black has intentionally breached a basic public health requirement which is contrary both to the tenant’s interests, and to the public interest. I award $150.00 exemplary damages for the unlawful act. Cross application

How much is owed for rent?

I find it more likely that the tenancy ended on 12 February 2024 and not 9 February 2024 as now stated by Ms Ellison.
I say this because I prefer the contemporaneous diary evidence of Ms Black, and I agree with Ms Black that Ms Ellison stated 12 February as the end date in her application to this Tribunal.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I have adjusted rent owing to $300.00 per week instead of the $350.00 claimed due to my finding of the invalid rent increase above. Rent owing from 6 October 2023 to 12 February 2024 at $300.00 per week is $5571.43. Ms Ellison has paid $4,850.00 in rent.
I therefore award $721.43 rent arrears to Ms Black.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Ms Black has not proven that Ms Ellison damaged a door handle during this tenancy. There are no inspection reports, nor any photographic evidence of the alleged damage.
Ms Ellisons accepts she is responsible for damage to the trellis therefore I make an award for the $240.00 sought by Ms Black. Filing Fee
I decline to make any award for the filing fee paid by Ms Ellison as both parties have been partly successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4889361 — net $161.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 February 2024	$721.43		Rent arrears to 12 February 2024
Repairs	$240.00		Repairs
Exemplary damages - no written tenancy agreement		$150.00	Exemplary damages - no written tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages - bond not lodged		$250.00	Exemplary damages - bond not lodged
Exemplary damages - no receipts for rent		$150.00	Exemplary damages - no receipts for rent
Exemplary damages - failure to maintain		$250.00	Exemplary damages - failure to maintain
Total award	$961.43	$800.00
Net award	$161.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$161.43

Order

Toni Ellison to pay Paula Black $161.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $300.00 immediately apportioned as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Ellison (tenant) seeks the following: (i) Bond refund of $300.00 (ii) Compensation for an invalid rent increase. (iii) Exemplary damages for: - No written tenancy agreement. - Bond not lodged. - No rent receipts. - Failure to maintain the premises.
Ms Ellison withdrew her claim for harassment.
Ms Black (landlord) has applied for rent arrears and compensation for damages. Ms Black failed to file a cross application as previously ordered, but as Ms Ellison agreed the claims could be heard without this formality, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the cross application in full.
The onus is on each of the parties to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
By way of background, the Tribunal made an order on 23 August 2024 that this was not an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) therefore the Tribunal has full jurisdiction to hear and determine the respective claims.

Was the rent increase valid?

Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the landlord must not increase rent within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy.
Ms Ellison says she agreed to rent the premises at $300.00 per week commencing 6 October 2023. Ms Ellison says that Ms Black increased rent to $350.00 from 24 December 2023 because she had a friend stay over once or twice a week. Ms Ellison says that her friend was not living at the premises. Ms Ellison says she was unable to receive assistance from WINZ because of the rent increase (and lack of tenancy agreement).
Ms Black says that she told Ms Ellison rent would increase by $50.00 per week from 1 December 2023 because she had a friend staying on a regular basis. Ms Black says this increase was to cover additional power, gas, and water which was included with the rent, and the premises were advertised with double occupancy at $350.00 per week.
I find that the rent increase was invalid. Ms Black was unable to provide sufficient evidence that another person was living at the premises with Ms Ellison, nor that the power, gas and water used during this tenancy was more than usual for single occupancy.
However, I decline to make any award of compensation as Ms Ellison has failed to provide any evidence of loss.
This part of the claim is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

Ms Ellison claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Black did not provide a written agreement as she says she always considered this as a boarding type of arrangement.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
I find that Ms Black intentionally failed to provide a tenancy agreement; albeit she erroneously believed that Ms Ellison was her boarder. There is a high public interest in making sure that landlords provide a written tenancy agreement which records both parties’ full obligations under the contract. In these circumstances, I find it just to make an award of $150.00 exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Ms Ellison claims 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.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Black says did not lodge the bond because she believed she was not obligated to do.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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 bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limits to protect the tenants’ interests. Ms Black intentionally failed to lodge the bond. 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.
Bearing in mind that Ms Black lodged the bond when ordered to do so by the Tribunal, I consider exemplary damages at the low end of the scale to be a just and appropriate award in this case. I therefore make an award of $250.00 exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to provide receipts for rent?

Toni Ellison claims the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent paid in cash except for two receipts provided at the start of the tenancy. .
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Black says the payments were erratic, so she kept the receipts in her receipt book.
I the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords issue receipts immediately for any cash payments. Although I accept that Ms Black kept her own records, this does not negate her obligations to provide receipts to the tenant. The lack of receipts has contributed to confusion and distrust which could have been avoided.
Accordingly, I make an award of $150.00 exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to provide running water in the kitchenette?

Ms Ellison claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Regulation 7(2)(a) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provides that There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water.
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.
Ms Black does not dispute there is no sink or tap in the kitchenette, but she says there is a sink close by in the adjoining bathroom, in addition to the vanity.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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.
I find that Ms Black has intentionally breached a basic public health requirement which is contrary both to the tenant’s interests, and to the public interest. I award $150.00 exemplary damages for the unlawful act. Cross application

How much is owed for rent?

I find it more likely that the tenancy ended on 12 February 2024 and not 9 February 2024 as now stated by Ms Ellison.
I say this because I prefer the contemporaneous diary evidence of Ms Black, and I agree with Ms Black that Ms Ellison stated 12 February as the end date in her application to this Tribunal.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I have adjusted rent owing to $300.00 per week instead of the $350.00 claimed due to my finding of the invalid rent increase above. Rent owing from 6 October 2023 to 12 February 2024 at $300.00 per week is $5571.43. Ms Ellison has paid $4,850.00 in rent.
I therefore award $721.43 rent arrears to Ms Black.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Ms Black has not proven that Ms Ellison damaged a door handle during this tenancy. There are no inspection reports, nor any photographic evidence of the alleged damage.
Ms Ellisons accepts she is responsible for damage to the trellis therefore I make an award for the $240.00 sought by Ms Black. Filing Fee
I decline to make any award for the filing fee paid by Ms Ellison as both parties have been partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4889361 — Rent arrears at 44 Hukutaia Road, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4889361 — Rent arrears at 44 Hukutaia Road, Opotiki, Opotiki 3122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the rent increase valid?

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to provide receipts for rent?

Did the landlord fail to provide running water in the kitchenette?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the rent increase valid?

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to provide receipts for rent?

Did the landlord fail to provide running water in the kitchenette?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions