How much money was awarded in case 5518242?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $671.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518242?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13813172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5518242?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $671.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518242?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13813172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

80A Coopers Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5518242 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518242 about?

The tribunal order states: Advantage Realty Limited As The Agent For Mustang Trust (Trustee: Kirk Vogel)

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5518242 — net $999.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to date	$671.43	Rent arrears to date
Exemplary damages	$300.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$999.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$999.43

Advantage Realty Limited As The Agent For Mustang Trust (Trustee: Kirk Vogel) is granted possession of the premises at 80A Coopers Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 at 12 noon 28 June 2026.

Keli Ransfield must pay Advantage Realty Limited As The Agent For Mustang Trust (Trustee: Kirk Vogel) $999.43 immediately, as per the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The landlord was not expecting any appearance by the tenant.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy initially ended on17 May 2026 which was the expiry date of a 90 day notice. This is less than 90 days ago.

At the request of the tenant, (who initially said she had somewhere to go, was all packed up and was just waiting for someone to help her move,) the tenancy was extended on two more dates, with the landlord advising the final end date would be 2 June 2026.

The landlord attempted to help the tenant get into new premises however the tenant did not take the landlord up on its offer. At one point she said she could move to family.

The landlord submits the tenant does not have anywhere to go and has her head in the sand.

It is very frustrated because it has worked hard with the tenant to assist her in moving.

The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing, as ordered above. Exemplary damages

The landlord asks for exemplary damages.

A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant failed to vacate the premise on the nominated date or on the two later agreed dates.

I find she 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.

In Auckland City Council v Blundell, the Court of Appeal stated: 1 Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of the conduct.

Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

It is established and settled law that the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the party against whom the order for exemplary damages are sought: 2 Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed “intentionally”. In my view negligence does not equate to intention and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has “intentionally” committed an unlawful act, evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind the act and deliberately set about to commit it.

That there must therefore be evidence of actual intention has been accepted in several District Court decisions as being the touchstone. 3

I accept the landlord’s evidence the tenant was well aware she had to move out. Had she really wanted to move out she would have cooperated with the landlord in taking up their offer of help in moving to another premises. The landlord told me that she has received no reference phone calls, evidence that suggests she has not even applied for any rental properties.

The tenant must know she has to leave and so in failing to do so, I consider she is acting intentionally.

It is in the public interest that tenants leave premises when they are meant to. 1 Auckland City Council v Blondell [1986] 1 NZLR 732 (CA) at 704 per Cooke P 2 See Chief Executive ex Parte Edmonson v Walls, North Shore Tenancy Tribunal 548/92, 29 June 1993 at [20]. 3 See, for example, AI Property Managers Ltd v Duggan [2021] NZDC 9168 and TMT New Zealand Ltd v Sweeney [2021] NZDC 16182.

I have no evidence the tenant has acted in this way before.

I therefore consider an appropriate amount to award is $300.

Because Advantage Realty Limited As The Agent For Mustang Trust (Trustee: Kirk Vogel) has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5518242 — net $999.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to date	$671.43	Rent arrears to date
Exemplary damages	$300.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$999.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$999.43