What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4971953?

The tribunal order states: Breeana Kelly must pay Kate Anderson and Richard Anderson $1,027.00

How much money was awarded in case 4971953?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971953?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10803239-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4971953?

The tribunal order states: Breeana Kelly must pay Kate Anderson and Richard Anderson $1,027.00

How much money was awarded in case 4971953?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971953?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10803239-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

60C Redwood Street, Blenheim, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4971953 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971953 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 August 2024	$4,000.00		Rent arrears to 9 August 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$200.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$4,027.00	$200.00
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,027.00

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond in time and failed to consent to an assignment/sub-let.

Is there rent owed?

This was a one year fixed-term tenancy that commenced 1 January 2024.

In early July the tenant advised the landlord she wanted to break the fixed-term. This was acknowledged and the tenant advised of associated costs.

Advertising commenced quickly.

There was limited interest immediately and the tenant sought to source replacements. One option was her sister, who contacted the landlord on 16 July 2024. There was no formal request for assignment per s 48B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). That contact came to nought.

On 1 August 2024 the tenant handed back the keys. She thought this would end the rent liability, based on advice received. Such advice was incorrect.

Regardless, a new tenancy formed shortly afterwards and rent liability ended 9 August 2024.

The landlord provided a rent summary that established the final rent arrears of $4,000.00. This is awarded.

Was the bond lodged?

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.

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 failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).

However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).

The landlord did not lodge the bond until the tenant application raised the issue. The landlord is experienced and explained this as an administrative oversight with the bond lodged shortly afterwards. The tenant claims to have rented with the landlord before and have encountered previous failures to lodge the bond. No evidence in support of the claim was available.

I find they have committed an unlawful act but accept it was at the lower end when considering any exemplary damages. I do consider some exemplary damages should be awarded and I order $200.00 here.

Was assignment denied?

I do not find any grounds to alter the rent arrears as claimed. Assignment or subletting was acceptable to the landlord, but more than a name referral is required to later consider a failure here, or in the duty of the landlord to mitigate its loss.

The landlord acted promptly to readvertise the premises, limiting the tenant exposure. They have also absorbed the costs incurred.

I dismiss any claims pertaining to assignment or subletting. Application filing fee

Because Kate Anderson, Richard Anderson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971953 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 August 2024	$4,000.00		Rent arrears to 9 August 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$200.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$4,027.00	$200.00
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,027.00

Order

Breeana Kelly must pay Kate Anderson and Richard Anderson $1,027.00 immediately, per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6438432-003) to Kate Anderson and Richard Anderson immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond in time and failed to consent to an assignment/sub-let.

Is there rent owed?

This was a one year fixed-term tenancy that commenced 1 January 2024.
In early July the tenant advised the landlord she wanted to break the fixed-term. This was acknowledged and the tenant advised of associated costs.
Advertising commenced quickly.
There was limited interest immediately and the tenant sought to source replacements. One option was her sister, who contacted the landlord on 16 July 2024. There was no formal request for assignment per s 48B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). That contact came to nought.
On 1 August 2024 the tenant handed back the keys. She thought this would end the rent liability, based on advice received. Such advice was incorrect.
Regardless, a new tenancy formed shortly afterwards and rent liability ended 9 August 2024.
The landlord provided a rent summary that established the final rent arrears of $4,000.00. This is awarded.

Was the bond lodged?

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.
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 failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
The landlord did not lodge the bond until the tenant application raised the issue. The landlord is experienced and explained this as an administrative oversight with the bond lodged shortly afterwards. The tenant claims to have rented with the landlord before and have encountered previous failures to lodge the bond. No evidence in support of the claim was available.
I find they have committed an unlawful act but accept it was at the lower end when considering any exemplary damages. I do consider some exemplary damages should be awarded and I order $200.00 here.

Was assignment denied?

I do not find any grounds to alter the rent arrears as claimed. Assignment or subletting was acceptable to the landlord, but more than a name referral is required to later consider a failure here, or in the duty of the landlord to mitigate its loss.
The landlord acted promptly to readvertise the premises, limiting the tenant exposure. They have also absorbed the costs incurred.
I dismiss any claims pertaining to assignment or subletting. Application filing fee
Because Kate Anderson, Richard Anderson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971953 — Rent arrears at 60C Redwood Street, Blenheim, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971953 — Rent arrears at 60C Redwood Street, Blenheim, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there rent owed?

Was the bond lodged?

Was assignment denied?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there rent owed?

Was the bond lodged?

Was assignment denied?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions