What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4969513?

The tribunal order states: Wendy Ross must pay Veruschka Herrick $627.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4969513?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969513?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11104810-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4969513?

The tribunal order states: Wendy Ross must pay Veruschka Herrick $627.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4969513?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969513?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11104810-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Tower Road, Matamata, Matamata 3400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4969513 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4969513 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$600.00	bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$627.00

Order

Wendy Ross must pay Veruschka Herrick $627.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and alleged harassment.
The matter was first heard on 18 September and adjourned. Directions were given, including for the landlord to file a counterclaim if she wanted any matters dealt with at the adjourned hearing. She did not do so. The tenant referred to additional claims at the hearing (for example, the power supply). However, as she did not request an amendment prior to the hearing, it went ahead based on the original claim. Bond
The tenant paid a bond of $600.00. The landlord did not lodge the bond, despite text requests from the tenant requesting that she do so and stating it was illegal not to. She claims she was unaware that she had to lodge the bond.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (s 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 (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 (s 109(3) RTA).
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. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
The landlord’s failure to lodge was clearly intentional. I do not accept her claim she was unaware of the obligation. In one of her text messages she stated [verbatim]: Yes we discussed the bond No I only like private renters iv explain that to u ... If it doesn’t suit u I fully understand that this private renting is not for u with the legal bond ur saying. But that’s the way I’d like to do it. ... If u don’t like that idea I’m ok if you want to leave and find a proper rental??? To secure ur bond probably. But this is the way I want to do it.
There is no such concept of a “private rental” that excludes the landlord’s obligation to lodge the bond. The property was a standalone ‘tiny home’ to which the RTA applied.
The bond has not been returned to the tenant. Part of the bond, $500.00, was allocated to a week’s rent. The landlord says the other $100.00 went towards an earlier shortfall in rent. Although the tenant disagrees, she does not seek the return of the balance.
For a first incident, the Tribunal looks at a starting point of around 30-40% of the maximum. There are no real mitigating factors in this case, and an award at the upper end of the range is appropriate. I have therefore awarded $600.00. Harassment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (s 38(2) RTA).
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 (s 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.
The tenant says the landlord harassed her with text messages about rent before rent was due, came to her door without notice, and made excessive noise outside her kitchen window at night. She supplied copies of text messages and several videos.
The landlord says the text messages were about unpaid rent, and she came to the door to attach notices about arrears. She says rent was due on a Wednesday and the tenant started paying on a Friday. In fact, as the tenancy started on a Thursday, that was the day rent was due.
The video evidence does not reveal much, although on one occasion the landlord clearly tested the door handle of the sliding door. Fortunately for her it was locked. Had it been unlocked, and had she opened the door and entered, the entry would have been unlawful.
There are a large number of text messages. Many are undated, and it is difficult establish a clear chronology. Most of the messages are relatively routine, some are amicable, and some are contentious. Overall, the tone and frequency of the messages falls short of establishing harassment. Therefore, this aspect of the claim is not proved. Filing fee and suppression
The tenant did not apply for name suppression. As she has been partially successful, I have reimbursed the filing fee. J P Smith 20 November 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4969513 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$600.00	bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$627.00

Order

Wendy Ross must pay Veruschka Herrick $627.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and alleged harassment.
The matter was first heard on 18 September and adjourned. Directions were given, including for the landlord to file a counterclaim if she wanted any matters dealt with at the adjourned hearing. She did not do so. The tenant referred to additional claims at the hearing (for example, the power supply). However, as she did not request an amendment prior to the hearing, it went ahead based on the original claim. Bond
The tenant paid a bond of $600.00. The landlord did not lodge the bond, despite text requests from the tenant requesting that she do so and stating it was illegal not to. She claims she was unaware that she had to lodge the bond.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (s 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 (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 (s 109(3) RTA).
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. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
The landlord’s failure to lodge was clearly intentional. I do not accept her claim she was unaware of the obligation. In one of her text messages she stated [verbatim]: Yes we discussed the bond No I only like private renters iv explain that to u ... If it doesn’t suit u I fully understand that this private renting is not for u with the legal bond ur saying. But that’s the way I’d like to do it. ... If u don’t like that idea I’m ok if you want to leave and find a proper rental??? To secure ur bond probably. But this is the way I want to do it.
There is no such concept of a “private rental” that excludes the landlord’s obligation to lodge the bond. The property was a standalone ‘tiny home’ to which the RTA applied.
The bond has not been returned to the tenant. Part of the bond, $500.00, was allocated to a week’s rent. The landlord says the other $100.00 went towards an earlier shortfall in rent. Although the tenant disagrees, she does not seek the return of the balance.
For a first incident, the Tribunal looks at a starting point of around 30-40% of the maximum. There are no real mitigating factors in this case, and an award at the upper end of the range is appropriate. I have therefore awarded $600.00. Harassment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (s 38(2) RTA).
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 (s 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.
The tenant says the landlord harassed her with text messages about rent before rent was due, came to her door without notice, and made excessive noise outside her kitchen window at night. She supplied copies of text messages and several videos.
The landlord says the text messages were about unpaid rent, and she came to the door to attach notices about arrears. She says rent was due on a Wednesday and the tenant started paying on a Friday. In fact, as the tenancy started on a Thursday, that was the day rent was due.
The video evidence does not reveal much, although on one occasion the landlord clearly tested the door handle of the sliding door. Fortunately for her it was locked. Had it been unlocked, and had she opened the door and entered, the entry would have been unlawful.
There are a large number of text messages. Many are undated, and it is difficult establish a clear chronology. Most of the messages are relatively routine, some are amicable, and some are contentious. Overall, the tone and frequency of the messages falls short of establishing harassment. Therefore, this aspect of the claim is not proved. Filing fee and suppression
The tenant did not apply for name suppression. As she has been partially successful, I have reimbursed the filing fee. J P Smith 20 November 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4969513 — Exemplary damages at 50 Tower Road, Matamata, Matamata 3400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4969513 — Exemplary damages at 50 Tower Road, Matamata, Matamata 3400

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