What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5011670?

The tribunal order states: Laly Samuel must pay Ritesh Prasad $1,000.00, being $500 exemplary

How much money was awarded in case 5011670?

Being: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011670?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11123841-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5011670?

The tribunal order states: Laly Samuel must pay Ritesh Prasad $1,000.00, being $500 exemplary

How much money was awarded in case 5011670?

Being: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011670?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11123841-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Whitcombe Terrace, Hokitika 7810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5011670 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011670. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
being	$500.00		being
exemplary damages and	$500.00		exemplary damages and

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011670. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
being	$500.00		being
exemplary damages and	$500.00		exemplary damages and

Order

Laly Samuel must pay Ritesh Prasad $1,000.00, being $500 exemplary damages and $500 compensation, immediately.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Dr Samuel attended in person. Mr Prasad attended by telephone. Ashley Wilson, the landlord’s handyman and latterly property manager, also attended and gave evidence.
The hearing considered the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. If follows a hearing to determine jurisdiction and the Tribunal’s order finding that this was a residential tenancy, and that the Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to determine the tenant’s claims. Background
The premises are a five-bedroom, four-bathroom house in Hokitika. It has been tenanted on a room-by-room basis with the landlord reserving a room for her own use when she visited Hokitika occasionally.
The tenant answered an advertisement for a room for a flatmate, signed a flatmate agreement with the landlord and moved into the premises on 6 September 2024. There were four other adults occupying three bedrooms in the premises at the time although one of the occupants was not present during the tenant’s stay.
The tenant soon found fault with aspects of the premises and the parties exchanged some testy messages. That culminated on 21 September in the landlord giving the tenant a 14-day termination notice as provided for in the agreement. On the same day the tenant filed his application.
The Tribunal’s order confirming jurisdiction was issued on 16 October and the tenant vacated the premises the same day and moved back to Auckland. Termination Notice
Having found that the tenancy is subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), it follows that the landlord’s termination notice was invalid. The Act does not allow the landlord to terminate a tenancy by notice without a prescribed reason and even then, the minimum period of notice is 63 days.
Under Section 60AA of the Act, 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. It is an unlawful act to do so and the Tribunal may award up to $6,500 for it.
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.
Everyone is deemed to know the law and so it follows that the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that she was not entitled to do so. I acknowledge that the outcome of a disputed jurisdiction hearing can be unpredictable, even with a good knowledge of residential tenancy law, but in this case, the decision was clear cut.
The landlord, and owner, described herself as the head tenant in the agreement which makes no sense. She was not a tenant. If she had been living in the premises (or as the Act states, using the premises principally as her place of residence), the Act would not have applied. But she was staying at the premises only occasionally and her home was in Christchurch.
It would have been as easy thing for the landlord to obtain advice on her situation either from a lawyer or from Tenancy Services. There is no evidence that she did so which I would describe as, at least, reckless. I find, therefore, that this was an intentional breach and that there should be an award of exemplary damages. It is very much in the public interest and the tenant’s interest that landlords understand and comply with their obligations regarding termination of tenancies. Otherwise, tenants and their families can suffer significant harm, inconvenience and expense without justification.
I questioned the tenant carefully about his situation before this tenancy and how the termination affected him. He said that he had been in Greymouth learning to be a digger operator in the hope to finding employment as such on the West Coast. He was separated from his wife and she and their child were living in Auckland. His wife did not support his move to the West Coast.
He talked about his employment prospects and my impression was that they were speculative at best. There was nothing in the offing. He said that he looked for other accommodation on the West Coast without success and so he has returned to Auckland. He did not produce any evidence of the efforts that he had made to find other accommodation.
I asked him whether he was going to have to return to Auckland in any case. He denied that, but I must wonder how long his quest for a life on the West Coast could have lasted.
I also asked him why he did not stay at the premises. As I said in my previous order, the tenant has shown himself to be a robust character and evidence that I heard at the substantive hearing reinforced that impression. He said that he felt stressed by the situation he was in, and he did not feel comfortable about staying. I am sceptical of that. Some of the evidence he gave did not strike me as credible, such as the landlord forcing him to stay in his bedroom and use a bucket for his toilet requirements. I am satisfied that he was free to use the bathrooms in the premises and that he did so.
I acknowledge that the situation was uncomfortable for all concerned, but I do not accept that the tenant was forced to leave. The landlord was at the premises only very occasionally and once it was established that the tenant had the right to remain in the premises, there was no urgency for him to leave.
Taking all this into consideration I find that there should be an award of $500 exemplary damages. This partly acknowledges the effect on the tenant but mainly it is to mark the Tribunal’s disapproval of the way that the landlord has acted. Other Claims Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
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.
The landlord had a camera near a window in the kitchen directed outside. The tenant took exception to the camera and claimed that it interfered with his and other tenant’s right to privacy. He removed the camera.
I do not find anything wrong with the camera. I accept the landlord’s evidence that she installed it due to security concerns expressed by her tenants. I find find that any risk to the tenants’ privacy from the camera picking up the tenants’ images reflected in the window at night to be negligible, if it existed at all.
I find that the camera did not interfere with the tenants’ privacy and so this claim is dismissed.
The landlord and her husband came to stay in the premises on 11 October for the weekend. There was an altercation between the parties during which the landlord ordered the tenant to stay in his room. I have listened to a recording of the incident. It was an unpleasant altercation, and it does not do the landlord credit. The tenant was not without fault, but it was an obvious interference with his quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Because it was prolonged, I find that it constituted harassment and an award of $500 is appropriate. Maintenance
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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. Heat Pump
The tenant claims that the heat pump in the living room was not working correctly.
I find that there was nothing significantly wrong with the heat pump and that there was a working underfloor heating system. The premises were well insulated and warm and dry. This claim is therefore dismissed. Rangehood
The tenant complains that the rangehood in the kitchen did not vent to the outside.
A rangehood was not required under the Healthy Homes Standards for this tenancy because the standard that requires a rangehood did not apply to it. The rangehood worked, but it did not vent to the outside. It was not required and so there was no requirement that it should vent to the outside.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Extractor Fans
The tenant complained that there was no extractor fan in one of the bathrooms.
For the same reason as given for the preceding claim, there was no requirement for extractor fans in the bathrooms. The window in the bathroom without an extractor fan opened and I find that it did not open in such a way as to interfere with the tenant’s privacy.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Shower
The landlord accepts that the shower head in the upstairs bathroom was faulty, and it was replaced. The shower doors were also faulty. The wheels at the bottom of the door had broken. The doors opened and closed running on wheels at the top and the shower was usable, and it did not pose a danger to the tenants.
There was a bathroom downstairs that the tenant could use. The tenant was in a room upstairs where a couple used the bathroom there to which they direct access from their bedroom. It therefore made more sense for the tenant to use one of the bathrooms downstairs. If he had any concerns about the bathroom upstairs, he could simply have used the bathroom downstairs.
If the landlord has been breach of her maintenance obligations in relation to the shower, it is minor and any affect on the tenant was negligible to non-existent. This claim is therefore dismissed. Unlawful Entry
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
A landlord may enter the premises with the consent of the tenant. I am satisfied that when the landlord entered the premises at least of the tenants gave her permission to do so. That is all that’s required. This claim is therefore dismissed. General
To the limited extent that the landlord might arguably have been in breach on any of her obligations as alleged by the tenant, there is no justification for awards of compensation or exemplary damages to him. The premises were comfortable, warm and dry, and the landlord responded reasonably to notifications of anything needing repair.
The landlord suggested that the tenant’s modus operandi was to find fault with the premises in the expectation of monetary gain. I would not do that far, but I agree that the tenant missed no opportunity to complain to the landlord although he had little to complain about.
All the tenant’s other claims are therefore dismissed. Suppression
The tenant’s request for suppression is refused. He has had limited success and there is no other justification for it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011670 — Exemplary damages at 24 Whitcombe Terrace, Hokitika 7810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011670 — Exemplary damages at 24 Whitcombe Terrace, Hokitika 7810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions