What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4956293?

The tribunal order states: Anna Christie must pay Executive Property Managers Limited $1,227.00

How much money was awarded in case 4956293?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956293?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11051417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4956293?

The tribunal order states: Anna Christie must pay Executive Property Managers Limited $1,227.00

How much money was awarded in case 4956293?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956293?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11051417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Paiawa Way, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4956293 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956293 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 July 2024	$600.00	Rent arrears to 21 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages for prohibited transaction	$600.00	Exemplary damages for prohibited transaction
Net award	$1,227.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956293 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 July 2024	$600.00	Rent arrears to 21 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages for prohibited transaction	$600.00	Exemplary damages for prohibited transaction
Net award	$1,227.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.00

Order

Anna Christie must pay Executive Property Managers Limited $1,227.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 10 May 2021 and was periodic. The tenant paid a bond of $2,240.00.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and exemplary damages on the basis the tenant entered a prohibited transaction.
The tenant claimed exemplary damages on the following grounds: a. That the landlord breached its obligation to give notice to the tenant of the premises being put on the market. See section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. b. That the landlord discriminated against the tenant. See section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. c. The tenant also referred to the landlord breaching the tenants right to quiet enjoyment. See section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
Both parties have applied for exemplary damages from the tenant. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of RTA.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral evidence and documentation provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all evidence. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the end of the tenancy, being 21 July 2024 is $600.00.
The tenant says that there was an agreement that she did not need to pay the final weeks rent.
The tenant said there had been discussions between herself and the landlord about the final day of the tenancy, while she accepted that rent was never specifically discussed she says it was implied that the rent obligation would end a week earlier than the landlord is claiming. The tenant relied on the email correspondence between herself and the landlord about the date she would vacate the property.
The tenant gave written notice on 2 July 2024. Section 51(2B) states that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 28 days’ notice. She is therefore liable for rent for the 28-day notice period ending on 30 July 2024.
The landlord emailed the tenant on 2 July 2024 to confirm that the owner had agreed to reduce the required notice period and the tenancy could end on 21 July 2024. The landlord advised that rent was payable to 21 July 2024.
On 15 July 2024 the tenant emailed the landlord to advise she had moved most of her possessions but would finish removing her possessions and clean the property later that week. The landlord acknowledged the email. The tenant returned the keys on 20 July 2024
I consider on the balance of probabilities that there was no agreement that rent was not to be paid for the final week of the tenancy and I make an order for rent arrears to 21 July 2024 of $600.00. Prohibited transaction
The landlord alleges that the tenant entered an arrangement with the Bond Centre for the purpose, or having the effect of, evading, defeating or preventing the operation of any provision of the RTA. See section 137(1) of the RTA.
This is referred to in the RTA as a “prohibited transaction” and is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 137(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant submitted a Bond refund form to the Bond Centre that he had signed but had immediately ripped in half when the tenant acknowledged to him that she had not paid the final weeks rent.
There was a dispute about whether the bond form was otherwise fully executed however I do not consider that material.
The tenant acknowledged that she retained the ripped form and submitted it to the Bond Centre with her signature. The tenant said she had spoken to Tenancy Services to outline the circumstances and was advised to provide the ripped bond form and a brief explanation.
The tenant emailed the Bond Centre on 22 July 2024 with two forms, a scanned copy of the ripped Bond refund form and another Bond refund form signed by her alone. Her email said: I am writing to request the bond refund as attached. I have attached two forms as the Landlord has gone back on his word about the initial refund.
The scanned copy of the ripped Bond Refund form was scanned so well that it would have been unclear to the person processing the Bond form that the original form had ever been torn. In addition, the email did not refer to previous phone calls the tenant had had with Tenancy Services and did not sufficiently explain the nature of the dispute or explain that the form signed by the landlord had been torn up as the landlord did not consider it was valid.
I need to consider the tenant’s intention.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act.
It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
It appears to me that the tenant intentionally committed an unlawful act.
Had the tenant provided confirmation to the Bond Centre that the form that the landlord had signed had been ripped, as I consider Tenancy services had advised her to do by advising her to provide a brief explanation with the form, a proper assessment could have been undertaken by the Bond Centre. It appears to me that the tenant intentionally omitted this information from her email to the Bond Centre, with the intention that the bond would be released without the landlord’s agreement.
It is relevant that the bond form itself states that “If there is any amount that you cannot agree on, this should be written in ‘Hold in Dispute’. This amount will not be paid out until agreement is reached or until a mediated/Tenancy Tribunal order is made.”
The tenant was well aware that the final weeks rent was in dispute and that is why the property manager had torn up the original bond form. He had only signed it in the first place because he believed Ms Christie had paid that rent. Landlord refund details
The impact of this has been to undermine the proper processing of the Bond refund in circumstances where there is no agreement. See section 22 A of the RTA.
As a result, the landlord has not received the final rent payment from the bond.
There is a public interest in parties providing properly executed forms to the Bond Centre. The public interest requires that a clear message be sent to parties who deliberately alter bond forms and mislead the bond centre.
The maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered for contravening the provisions of the Act is $1,800.00. I therefore consider an award of a third of the maximum is appropriate, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of similar orders being made against the tenant. I order the tenant to pay exemplary damages of $600.00.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Notice that premises on the market

A landlord must give written notice to the tenants, immediately if the premises are placed on the market.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
On 17 June 2024 the landlord gave notice that the property was to be placed on the market. I accept that there had been some communication between the landlord, the real estate agent and the tenant before this date, however this communication was in relation to a market assessment and preparing the premises for sale.
The landlord confirmed the premises were placed on the market after the 17 June 2024.
I do not find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. Discrimination
The tenant claims that the landlord discriminated against her.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) of the RTA.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The tenant says the landlord discriminated against her on the basis of her financial position. The tenant felt that the landlord made inappropriate comments about her not being able to afford the rent and how she spent her money. The tenant referred to the landlord making comment about the tenant spending money on makeup at the final inspection and said the landlord made inappropriate comments about her struggle to pay rent as she lived alone. She said that the landlord was “resentful” that she could not pay more rent.
The landlord advised that when the rent was increased in July 2024, it was intended to increase by $680.00, which was below the market rate of $730.00. At the request of the tenant the rent was only increased by $650 to take into account the tenant’s financial situation. I consider that the landlord has been considerate of the tenant’s financial situation and do not consider the discussions around her ability to pay rent amount to discrimination.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act. I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages for discrimination. Breach of quiet enjoyment
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.
I understand the real estate agent was persistent in their communication with the tenant in arranging viewings and building inspections while it was on the market. The tenant said she had deleted the WhatsApp messages from the real estate agent. This was essentially a claim the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment for a period of weeks while the property was marketed. In essence that the marketing campaign was unreasonable intrusive.
The application records that there was an agreement to reduce the rent because of the marketing campaign and the rent summary confirms the rent was reduced by $50 a week for a period of four weeks before the tenancy ended which in my view adequately compensates the tenant. It is also relevant that the tenant insisted on being home whenever someone entered the property. In a real sense this contributed to her sense of unfairness but was self-imposed in the sense that the Act only requires that a tenant be given adequate notice of the viewings and other visits.
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. 47. The landlord was not privy to all the communications between the real estate agent and the tenant, and I consider that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression, however having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest I do not order name suppression for the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956293 — Rent arrears at 8 Paiawa Way, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956293 — Rent arrears at 8 Paiawa Way, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions