What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4407860 about?

The tribunal order states: Shobna Prasad, Atil Shankar and Robinson Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4407860?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4407860?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4407860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9970916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4407860 about?

The tribunal order states: Shobna Prasad, Atil Shankar and Robinson Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4407860?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4407860?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4407860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9970916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Published tribunal order

Tenancy Tribunal case 4407860 — Smoke alarms

Decided 20 Feb 2024 · Published 20 Feb 2024 · Application 4407860

Smoke alarms

Party names are redacted in the official published order.

Order

Shobna Prasad, Atil Shankar and Robinson Property Management Limited (Trading As) Quinovic Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $2,678.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Shobna Prasad, Atil Shankar and Robinson Property Management Limited (Trading As) Quinovic Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $2,678.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The applicants and first respondent attended the final hearing. The second respondent was not required for the continuation hearing.
This has been a protracted tenant application and series of hearings. It was first submitted on 6 October 2022 while the tenancy was current. The application was lodged against the second respondent only (the second and final landlord). The tenancy ended on 15 December 2022 after the parties mutually agreed to a two week notice to terminate by the tenants.
The second respondent failed to attend a case conference on 11 November 2022 but the matter was referred to mediation. That mediation failed and a continuation hearing was set down for 30 March 2023. That hearing was adjourned after concluding the hearing of the tenant claims against the second respondent. This was to enable service on the first respondent before the continuation. The final hearing was to consider the tenant claims against the first respondent.
The bond was returned to the tenants.
The alternative to joining both landlords was for a fresh tenant application to have been required against the first respondent. This would have meant two applications against each of the two landlords active during this tenancy. Such an alternative approach was less desirable. The main reason for this was a concern that some issues raised and heard in the application regarding the second landlord predated or had some origin or continuation from the first landlord term of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced 25 February 2022 under a one-year fixed term tenancy agreement. Before commencement, but after signing of the tenancy agreement, the owner decided to attempt to sell the property. Despite some attempts to agree on compensation to the tenants so the tenancy might not commence, nothing was agreed and the tenancy continued. The property was sold on 17 June 2022, with settlement on 10 August 2022. On 10 August 2022 the first respondent ceased to be the landlord, replaced by the new owners, who are the second respondent to this order.
The significant effort of the tenant in prosecuting their application is acknowledged. As the actual operation of the tenancy unfolded over a number of hearings it was not immediately apparent that joining the initial owner as the third respondent may be appropriate for any claims per s 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) during the first landlord tenure. This section requires the landlord take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. The tenants expressed a preference to conclude this application after the last hearing and that is respected. Any application of s 45(1)(e) would have to be against the owner as he is considered a landlord of both tenancies. Evidence
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. A further important factor is consistency between claims and supporting evidence.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented. This case turns on its facts. Some of the material facts are in dispute. Therefore, I must decide the facts. It is impracticable for me to recite all the evidence in detail and I will not do so unless it is necessary, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
The property was divided into an “upstairs” premises of 4 bedroom (a misnomer given a bedroom and utility/laundry/garage existed downstairs) and a smaller “downstairs” premises occupied by a single person.
At the commencement of the Quinovic property management (prior to this tenancy) both premises were under established tenancies, established by the owner. The upstairs premises become vacant and after advertising by Quinovic this tenancy formed on 25 February 2022. The downstairs remained tenanted with the owner remaining as the sole landlord. Legal status
The first landlord claimed the premises, being the “upstairs”, was not unlawful. Given it did not manage the downstair self-contained flat it had no view on that premises status.
The tenants requested a visit from the [City] Council and a staff member from the building compliance completed an inspection. [Image has been removed]
Quinovic response was the upstairs premises was a legal dwelling and therefore able to be tenanted and to do so was not a breach of the RTA. That ignores questions of appropriate firewall separation from another dwelling as a minimum but apart from the letter from Ms Spillman I have no evidence from the tenants to conclude the dwellings physical separation was such that any order relating to unlawful residential premises should be made per Section 78A RTA. Applicants’ case The start
The tenants stated the agent at the showing assured them the premises would get a “full and thorough professional clean due to the state the boys had the house in”, and that Quinovic use a really great company who will do a very thorough job. They claim he said the gardens and grounds would have a full tidy up and a monthly gardener. The tenants asked the agent if it would be possible to meet the downstairs tenant, and the agent responded in the affirmative but said the tenant was away at that time. No meeting occurred before signing or move-in.
The tenants said they quickly looked in the downstairs room and that the agent pointed out some previous water damage in one corner of the room, stating he said it was "due to flooding that came through the garage caused by the drain being blocked” and that he pointed out towards the drain in between the bedroom and garage.
The tenants had not previously considered renting a home with a joined dwelling. It was a big negative to them, but in this instance that was offset by their lengthy and, to that date, unsuccessful search. There were also specific positives on offer, acknowledged by the tenants as being the premises was big enough to fit their large family, in a location they needed for all of the kids schooling and work, and with an amazing view. The family was blending together into this tenancy from two separate tenancies.
The tenants were advised on 4 February 2022, before move-in day, but after giving notice at their existing tenancies, that the house would be put on the market. Discussion of compensation to the tenants if they surrendered the tenancy before moving in occurred but no mutually acceptable agreement was reached. Key day/commencement
The contract was signed and a more detailed meeting between the tenants and the property manager occurred on the move-in day. The tenants claimed a number of prior reassurances were not upheld. Of particular concern was the unnotified change in hot water supply from electric to instant via a gas califont. This served both premises with no separation or metering for the exclusive use.
The tenants had still to meet the downstairs tenant. Even if that occurred, I note the tenants had signed the tenancy agreement beforehand and without any meeting.
The tenants uplifted the keys and went to the premises. Condition at commencement
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA).
Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonable condition.
The tenants discovered a number of problems with the condition of the premises upon entry.
Entry issues as summarised by the tenants were: a. Range hood with visible oil drips on the underside edges, grease filled filters, sticky outside (this range hood went on to drip oil on us and into our food throughout the entire time we lived there) b. Miscellaneous undiscernible splashes, drips and smears on the walls c. Carpets d. Windows e. Chewing gum f. Spiders webs with whole spider families. g. Urine stench h. Lights missing bulbs i. Smoke alarms, not just the ones that needed to be put back up but others needed not present at all. j. Dishwasher filled with broken glass and food scraps k. Shower trap completely clogged resulting in shower overflowing on first attempt at use l. Oven filthy greasy finger print places on chattels list m. Kitchen and windows looked like they had had a wipe down with a smeary dirty cloth. n. More items than expected left from past tenants o. Gardens not done as per promises from Tim. p. We noticed that instead of the wee 9kg gas bottle we had seen at the viewing that there was two large 45kg ones and what looked like a whole new gas system.
The property manager later acknowledged some issues (via email 14 March 2022), writing: I am sorry you were disappointed with the state of the property when you moved in, as I understand you were offered a significant payment by our client to not proceed with the tenancy but chose to proceed. This has unfortunately meant that we have been caught a little on the hop with allowing sufficient time between tenancies to address the issues we were aware of.
On a number of occasions, due to differing issues and reasons, the tenants said they requested rent reductions, but none was forthcoming. There was no application to the Tribunal regarding the issues but the tenants stated they were keeping records with the intent to do so later.
On 14 Mar 2022, Juliet Robinson emailed the tenants. She wrote: Further to our conversation this morning I have provided copies of work orders issued today as a result of our conversation this morning and your earlier email. In summary:
We have a replacement oven ordered which will be delivered by [Company] on Wednesday of this week. We also need to have a builder address the cavity size for the oven to fit properly. Without prejudice we are hoping to have the handiman on site to install this Thursday morning of this week although we have not had confirmation of this time.
As I can see from the Word Orders the light bulbs and smoke alarm were fitted on the 24/2/22 by our handiman. It would seem if 16 bulbs have blown that there may be an electrical wiring issue. We have issued a work order for [Redacted] to investigate, they will be in contact to arrange access.
As you know [Locksmith] have called to fix the lock but this cannot be done until the rollers are repaired this is currently booked in for next Monday (the earliest Exceed could attend)
As far as the glass fragments in the garden are concerned I have someone scheduled or Tuesday 22nd March in the afternoon to come around and pick this up. In terms of the cleanliness of the property I take your comments on board and will discuss further with [redacted] when she returns to the office (grease on switches, chewing gum on ceiling of bedroom, shower drain needed cleaning, garden tidy up, broken glass in grounds).
The tenants emailed a reply on 31 March 2022 and this is copied below. [Image has been removed] [Image has been removed]
The list above was extensive. Many items were addressed while some remained in dispute. Covid isolation in the household did delay some activities.
While the tenants believed a full commercial carpet clean was required, I do not find the photos establish this.
The landlord provided a four-hour professional clean. The tenants believed this was insufficient time to complete the required tasks. It is more usual that that the Tribunal evaluates such invoices when submitted by landlords as vacated cleaning claims – my task remains the same, are the costs/effort claimed commensurate with the evidenced effort? Having done so, it is not unusual to adjust such invoices downwards to reflect what is considered reasonable. In this instance, I consider a professional cleaner could have attended to the tasks, bringing them to a reasonable standard, within the allocated time.
From an overall perspective of the property, the tenants stated that the most part the upper levels were “lovely and warm throughout the time we lived there, however the yellow bedroom conversion in the garage was draftee and frigidly cold through winter”. Downstairs premises
It is accepted at commencement there was no lock between the two premises. A deadbolt was promised but still not installed after four weeks. The tenants used a large buffet unit to block the door. The landlord claimed the door was nailed shut but the tenants stated they had walked through the door. The tenant recounting appeared the more likely.
The tenants raised noise issues from the downstairs tenant early on. The property manager contacted the owner as Quinovic did not manage the downstairs tenancy. The tenants stated that for a few weeks after this his “tv was quieter and his blender didn't happen so late.” The tenants stated there was no sound insulation and “every noise came through”. That may have been the case but insufficient evidence of this and any structural flaws between the premises was provided.
Another problem recounted by the tenants was their water pressure was impacted by the downstairs concurrent use.
I do not find any grounds for specific compensation regarding interference with quiet enjoyment from the downstairs tenant and any failure by the landlord to address have been established. Unlawful entry
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The occasion cited was when the landlord attended to some outdoor tasks, clearing rubbish from the gardens. It was claimed that the landlord entered the premises via the downstairs door. Emails between the tenants as well as to the landlord were provided.
The landlord recounted her version of the entry. She claims she entered to call out as someone was vacuum cleaning and no knocking could be heard. No further ingress took place.
I find it more than likely the landlord did enter the premises, albeit only through the door. I cannot determine if the door was open or closed. If closed, it was not locked. Such an entry is an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) RTA).
In this instance, having considered the above circumstances, I decline to make any order of exemplary damages. Flood
On or around 8 June the tenants experienced a flooding event in the downstairs area (the garage and bedroom) after heavy rainfall. They were away at the time. They found the area had been subject to a significant flooding event, claiming “we could see that the "carpet" past the foot of the bed was sodden, we could see the floor was wet right up to the wall (under window)”.
The landlord moved quickly and a plumber attended. The tenants claimed the plumber stated the cause was a well blocked drain. This drain had been identified by the tenants at entry as requiring attention, but it did not appear to feature as an unresolved task in the subsequent lists sighted.
The tenants stated the bedroom was a mess. Repairs included drying and removal/replacement of the wall linings. The disruption extended over five weeks. Insurance was available.
I do not find the tenant recounting of the plumber’s comment regarding the drain sufficient to determine that the flooding was an avoidable event, caused only due to a landlord failure to maintain at commencement. I do not award any specific compensation here. Balustrade
The balustrade was a major safety concern from the start and the tenants believed they should never have been allowed to move into this property without it being repaired first. The condition was acknowledged by the landlord and confirmed by the council inspection. The repair was not completed until 19 April 2022. Following the repair the tenants still put barriers in front of this section of balustrade to deter anyone from getting too close as they believed the repair had not been effective. No evidence was available to confirm any fault in the repair once completed.
The balcony was an area the children were not allowed to be unattended throughout the tenancy. The concern of the tenants regarding the stability of the balustrade after the repair is acknowledged. Given the height of the balustrade and the possible drop some caution about the children may have been expected regardless.
The sliding door to this deck was also problematic and a pre-existing problem that should have been addressed before the tenancy commenced. Washing machine
The tenancy included a front-loading washing machine as supplied chattel. This appliance had a water heater and as the only tap water source was cold this was required for any warm or hot washing. It failed and was replaced. The replacement model could not heat water, making cold washing the only option as the landlord would not install a hot water tap. The tenants offered to use their washing machine, with a rent discount requested. No discount was offered but the tenants needed hot water washing and so used their own.
The replacement washing machine was not a like for like. Some compensation is considered due given the tenants had to use their own washing machine to retain the equivalent facility they had at commencement. I have calculated a 19-week period (to the end of the first landlord tenure) and an amount of $5 per week to award compensation of $95.00. I make no award for during the second landlord tenure as I do not consider the second landlord should be bound by the first landlord’s failure. Rodents
The tenants recalled that at entry they we found fresh “rodent poo in one of the few complete kitchen draws”. This was raised with the landlord as well as the damaged bin inserts (holes at the base of both). They further recounted that rodents, “regularly tore open the bin liners causing rubbish and bin juices to fall into the cupboard, often jamming the draws. It was not just an issue of some rodent poo in places, we saw them and even had them leap out of the bins or off the curtains onto us.”
The parties adopted different stances regarding the rodent problem. The tenants believed it was a pre-existing problem that should have been addressed by the landlord before. The landlord claimed no problems had been raised before.
Given the poor state of premises at the end of the last tenancy, it is hard to put much weighting on the lack of prior reporting by those tenants. The grease and other debris outside in the gardens would not have helped pest management but there is a lack of evidence on the extent and any impact of rodents, beyond the likely gnawing of the rubbish bins as shown in the photos.
I do address the bin inserts under this section. Both parties provide photos that show the holes in different states. This may be due to angles or timings of the photos but I do consider the tenants have established grounds, regardless of any rodent activity, to conclude the bin liners were not fit for purpose, the damaged state predated the tenancy and the request for replacement was not considered unreasonable. House sale
The tenants were notified by the landlord on 25 July 2022 that the house had been sold, and advised dates of handover while clarifying the fixed term continues. The tenants were advised of the last date for rent payment to Quinovic as they would cease to be the property manager. It was advised as well that the landlord understood Summit Property Management would commence the property management with a name provided. Summit Real Estate had listed and sold the property but it did not commence as property manager.
There were delays in settlement and no formal advice of the successor was provided to the tenants. Two sections of the RTA have some bearing in a change of landlord.
Section 15 requires that when a landlord’s interest passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days, advise the other party to the tenancy of new contact details, an address for service, a contact phone number and an email address.
Section 43 requires when the landlord disposes of his or her interest in the premises to any other person (here, the purchaser), the landlord shall give to the tenant written notice of the disposition, including the name and contact address of the purchaser so far as those particulars are known to the landlord.
In terms of s 43, having reviewed the confused messaging regarding the settlement, the change in landlord, and the contact details provided, I find the landlord may have passed on the particulars as best known. I consider s 15 has a greater bearing as it is the incoming landlord who should be motivated to ensure rent payments are made to them and that they contact the tenants as soon as possible, even sooner than the statutory 10 working days.
This notification of landlord changeover is discussed later as its impact impacted mostly the second landlord phase. Respondent One’s response
Ms Robinson for the landlord stated her understanding was that at the time of viewing the property the tenants were quite desperate to move into a rental property as they had been looking for quite some time and had been unsuccessful in securing anywhere.
It was acknowledged that it took time to get the property and the required repairs and maintenance items completed.
The gas did supply both upstairs and downstairs. The landlord was unsure what verbal agreement the tenants and the property manager came to with regards to apportioning amounts for invoicing but from reading the emails she believed it the tenants accepted a 70/30 split with the single occupant downstairs.
With regards to the sale, Quinovic was not informed at the time of taking the management that the owner had any intention to sell, or it would not have taken on the management. The moment this was bought to its attention she believes the landlord followed correct RTA procedures and notified the tenants.
Ms Robinson recalled informing the owner that it did not feel it fair to sell the property since the tenants had just accepted their tenancy. From the evidence it appears the decision to sell was forced due to the circumstances of the owner and not premeditated.
Once the property sale settled on 10 August 2022 Quinovic property management also ceased.
The landlord recounted that the new owner did approach it at one stage asking it to continue to manage the property, but she felt that this was not in our best interests, and so declined.
She confirmed Quinovic had had no further involvement with the tenant 1 , the new owner, nor the property since August 2022.
The landlord also provided evidence of a number of work orders and, post hearing, a series of photos as she attended the hearing with numerous photos on a USB stick – they were of no evidential use at that time. These photos, at times, contrast to near equivalents provided by the tenants, leaving some question as to the actual condition in areas. The framing of such photos can create different impressions.
The work orders provided by the landlord reflect significant activity, albeit some later than they should have been, and a number due to prior issues that should 1 The second landlord refers to conversations with Quinovic afterwards but I accept these were informal and response to an approach to Quinovic for advice or information regarding the gas supply practice. have been resolved before the tenants raised them. The Covid isolation in the house did delay some contractors. There also appears to have been fairly frequent contact 2 , both in person and via email. This was necessitated and reflected deficiencies requiring attention and delays or disputes regarding resolution. I note the different perspectives of the parties regarding a number of tasks resolution status; completed, or not, to a reasonably standard. Claims against the Landlord - second respondent
The claims against the second landlord made were varied from the original application to seek compensation of $65,000 for: a. Landlord interfering with supply of services to premises 45 (1A,2A) x3 times gas and avoidable, with every attempt by tenant to organise and prevent this happening. b. Landlord interfering with supply of services to premises 45 - Failed to supply gardener as per our tenancy agreement. c. Landlord entered the property under false pretences. d. Landlord coming onto property without notice and took photos. e. Harassment and bullying, interference of peace, comfort or privacy of tenant.
The tenants stated that on 14 August 2022 they made contact with the new landlord, requesting gas to be supplied and a time to meet or call to discuss the tenancy and the plans moving forward for utilities. They said they had a brief call with her and she promised she would organise gas for the start of the week. Other administrative matters such as the rent payment bank account details were also confirmed. The tenants understood she was going to come to [City] to discuss the tenancy and utilities and they believe they were told the new owners were wanting to keep the property as a rental for roughly 10 years before moving into it themselves. No meeting took place. Covid reared again, this time with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged her failure to advise the tenants she would not make the meeting. 2 In an email in late March, [redacted] told the tenants, “I am concerned that you feel that your requests for a meeting were not responded to and that you feel your emails have not been addressed as of yet. I personally met with you at the property on Monday 28th February and again on Friday 11th March. Juliet also met with you at the property on Thursday 17th March.” Utilities
The change in owner and property manager meant the prior LPG supply arrangement ceased.
The tenants provided a detailed timeline of the concerns and lack of resupply. The landlord responded with the challenges experienced.
I will not recount all the details in this order. Suffice to say the tenants experienced some outages due to no gas and they had to actively pursue the landlord. No regular supply as established.
The landlord advised she would not be seeking any compensation from the tenants for the gas or electricity costs incurred during the tenancy.
I estimate an approximate windfall to the tenants of $1,405.00 and this is considered fair compensation for the problems experienced. Gardener
I accept the new landlords did not attend to the gardens. This is factored into a compensation total below for this, and other, failures of the landlord. Entry
The tenants claimed the landlord had come onto the property without notice and entered the property under false pretences.
The issue appears to be the new owners taking the opportunity to take some photos of themselves on the property after settlement. Some tenant evidenced was obtained from the owner’s social media page, where the owner shared their excitement at purchasing the property.
I find the photo breaches to be minimal, the upset to the tenants notwithstanding. The landlord also served other notices for entry that the tenants challenged. No actual inspection took place.
These landlord actions have been recognised in the compensation awarded below. Quiet enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment.
The owners were accidental landlords who inherited two tenancies with issues. I accept they attempted to obtain professional property management later, and if the statements are correct, they were rejected by the previous property manager and declined by another.
I have carefully considered the messages and submissions. It is unfortunate that Covid impacted a face-to-face meeting as that may have avoided what became a difficult relationship. However, I do not find the tenants quiet enjoyment was so impacted that it formed harassment and therefore an unlawful act.
The cited and evidenced failures of the owners to meet what would be considered a reasonable level of meeting their landlord obligations is addressed below. Respondent Two’s response
The landlord acknowledged they did request to come for a visit or inspection but said as this was denied she never entered the property.
In response to the tenants providing photos showing her husband at the property 3 , she wrote. I posted on social media yes that is my post and my husband and his friend went to put the sold sign on and asked summit agent to inform them that my husband will come to put the sold sign on and just walk outside but can't go to property, so they knew. So my husband took few pictures of house and left. 3 It is accepted that prior to purchasing the property the husband had visited and spoken to the tenants. This is not considered of any significance as that meeting was prepurchase and not during their landlord tenure.
She further wrote, “We bought a house and knew there will be tenants and but we wanted it empty but when my husband went to view the house and chat with them they wanted to stay on the property and requested to give them time, so with good faith my husband did ask Summit to not vacate them, let them be there until we take over and decide what we want to do with the property.” This confirms some discussion with Summit regarding the tenancy – with the likely intent that Summit would take over as believed by the outgoing landlord. It is also confirms a concerning expectation of the owners of a right to terminate that was not available to them during the fixed-term.
The landlord said that after taking over the property they later decided they wanted to move back to [City] (they were living in Christchurch) and they gave the tenants a notice (dated 30 October 2022) to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. She said this was after looking at Tenancy Services information and talking to someone. She wrote that the advice was they can give the tenant “60 days or 90 days notice, so l got the form and filled it and when l read both categories were applicable on my situation” so she selected both, but we knew we have to give them 90 days notice.”. Further confusion was caused as one reason given for the notice was that the vacant possession was required due to an unconditional sale, while the other was that the premises was required for the owner. The notice was poorly drafted, but I consider it to be that only with no other intent.
Regarding the gas supply, the landlord stated she applied for an account to be opened with the supplier and that took a day to open. The actual delivery was a week later as the delivery cycle was every Tuesday and Thursday. She said she spoke with Quinovic as the need for resupply seems excessive and they advised the premises used two bottles and was replaced every five weeks. In the written submission she wrote: So how come every second week [Tenant 1] needed the 60kg gas bottle. As l understood that the delivery was gona be Done every 3rd week for 1 bottle. l did mentioned supplying weekly but l thought it was a 20 kg bottle but than upon asking the quinovic was told 60 kg that's when l changed to 3 weekly.
The landlord said the reason for not making the scheduled on-site meeting was that the whole family had Covid and they could not travel from Christchurch. She acknowledged she failed to advise the tenants of this, compounding an already fraught situation.
Elsewhere in the written submission the landlord recalls telling the tenants of their own situation but that the tenants were more “concerned about fixing the house and other things”. They said they could not afford it “as we just bought the house, so we wanted to move in and save money than to repairs.”
The landlord concluded her submission by stating, “We are a simple people with genuine mistake and misunderstanding which could have talked over but [Tenant 1] never wanted to she always wanted to go to court, l mean for 3x gas bottles not supplied can cost a landlord 65k l would never miss it.”
The landlord advised at the hearing that she had absorbed all utility costs incurred during the tenancy and she would not be seeking compensation from the tenants for this. The premises were returned in good condition. A shorter termination period for the tenant benefit was provided and utilised and she said a good reference had been provided to the next landlord. Analysis
I consider the tenants were aware of the property condition at signing but they had a reasonable expectation the obvious issues would be addressed as promised. It is clear the two parties had different interpretations of what is reasonable condition but equally, some failures were mutually acknowledged. I can only ponder if the tardiness to prepare the premises appropriately for the new tenancy was in anticipation of the tenants accepting what was a significant financial incentive to surrender the tenancy before move in.
I do not agree with the landlord that the refusal to surrender the tenancy was a negotiating tactic. I consider it more reflects the long search for a suitable tenancy and the lack of alternatives at that time. While financially attractive, the wheels were in motion for the two existing tenancies to end and, without a confirmed alternative to move to, the potential downsides diminished any potential benefit from such an action. Whatever the reasons for the delays, the tenants did not enjoy a premises in reasonable condition at the commencement.
The tenants had an overlap of rent payable during the end of their previous tenancies and the start of this one. They used some that period to prepare the house before the families moved in, mitigating what would have been a more significant impact if a full move-in occurred. A deferral in the commencement to ensure its readiness would have reduced the double rent spend during this time.
The failure of the existing electric hot water cylinder before this tenancy prompted the owner to install an alternate LPG instant hot water system. The use of a single califont for the two premises hot water supply was always going to make exclusive use apportionment problematic. Given the tenant payments to the first landlord towards the cost of gas were later repaid to the tenant (after they requested it), the landlord has effectively already done what I would have ordered. The second landlord has also absorbed the costs. The other impact from change from electricity to LPG was the failure to ensure continuous supply. Establishing this can be a challenge at the best of times, so it is not unexpected that the process here, with two separate users of a new hot water heating source, and a change in owner/contracted party, generated some issues. It appeared to settle before the change in owner upset the resupply process with further impacts.
While the tenants raised many issues and impacts, I had some difficultly aligning all of these with the supporting evidence. Compensation
Some compensation has already been provided through both respondents’ approach to utility costs, either via refunding or absorbing. This totals approximately $1,900.00.
Further grounds for compensation have been established and the following awards are made: First respondent
The tenants are awarded the equivalent of 1.5 weeks rent ($1,030.00 rounded) for the landlord’s failure or delays to provide the premises in reasonable condition and the subsequent impacts, as traversed in this order.
A separate compensation of $300.00 is ordered for the initial landlord failures to ensure smoke alarms were correctly positioned (s 45(1)(ba)) and the premises could be secured (s 46). I have not determined exemplary damages for either as appropriate.
The tenants are awarded $95.00 compensation for the use of their washing machine to maintain a hot washing capability. Second respondent
It is difficult to ascertain exactly what the new owner awareness of their landlord obligations were. I remain uncertain if they were poorly advised or ignored any such advice.
Some issues might have been avoided if a suitable property manager was successfully engaged by the landlord. In the absence of this, I have considered the efforts required of the tenants (and impacts on them) as well as the saving to the landlord in avoiding fees for such a service. I find general compensation should be awarded and I have used the approximately 18-week second landlord tenure and used 10% of rent 4 to award $1,233.00 to the tenants as compensation for the landlords’ failures to meet their obligations during this period. 4 This percentage is at the higher end of typical property management commissions but this recognises other likely management fixed costs that were avoided, such as establishment, managing work orders etc. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee, apportioned across the two respondents. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants’ requested suppression. I consider they have had sufficient success to justify suppression of their details, if not automatically then through my exercise of the Tribunal’s initiative. Tenant name suppression is ordered. Timing of the order
The delay in releasing this order reflects a significant volume of evidence to revisit and consider. The patience of the parties is appreciated.

Order

Shobna Prasad, Atil Shankar and Robinson Property Management Limited (Trading As) Quinovic Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $2,678.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The applicants and first respondent attended the final hearing. The second respondent was not required for the continuation hearing.

This has been a protracted tenant application and series of hearings. It was first submitted on 6 October 2022 while the tenancy was current. The application was lodged against the second respondent only (the second and final landlord). The tenancy ended on 15 December 2022 after the parties mutually agreed to a two week notice to terminate by the tenants.

The second respondent failed to attend a case conference on 11 November 2022 but the matter was referred to mediation. That mediation failed and a continuation hearing was set down for 30 March 2023. That hearing was adjourned after concluding the hearing of the tenant claims against the second respondent. This was to enable service on the first respondent before the continuation. The final hearing was to consider the tenant claims against the first respondent.

The bond was returned to the tenants.

The alternative to joining both landlords was for a fresh tenant application to have been required against the first respondent. This would have meant two applications against each of the two landlords active during this tenancy. Such an alternative approach was less desirable. The main reason for this was a concern that some issues raised and heard in the application regarding the second landlord predated or had some origin or continuation from the first landlord term of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced 25 February 2022 under a one-year fixed term tenancy agreement. Before commencement, but after signing of the tenancy agreement, the owner decided to attempt to sell the property. Despite some attempts to agree on compensation to the tenants so the tenancy might not commence, nothing was agreed and the tenancy continued. The property was sold on 17 June 2022, with settlement on 10 August 2022. On 10 August 2022 the first respondent ceased to be the landlord, replaced by the new owners, who are the second respondent to this order.

The significant effort of the tenant in prosecuting their application is acknowledged. As the actual operation of the tenancy unfolded over a number of hearings it was not immediately apparent that joining the initial owner as the third respondent may be appropriate for any claims per s 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) during the first landlord tenure. This section requires the landlord take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. The tenants expressed a preference to conclude this application after the last hearing and that is respected. Any application of s 45(1)(e) would have to be against the owner as he is considered a landlord of both tenancies. Evidence

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. A further important factor is consistency between claims and supporting evidence.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented. This case turns on its facts. Some of the material facts are in dispute. Therefore, I must decide the facts. It is impracticable for me to recite all the evidence in detail and I will not do so unless it is necessary, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background

The property was divided into an “upstairs” premises of 4 bedroom (a misnomer given a bedroom and utility/laundry/garage existed downstairs) and a smaller “downstairs” premises occupied by a single person.

At the commencement of the Quinovic property management (prior to this tenancy) both premises were under established tenancies, established by the owner. The upstairs premises become vacant and after advertising by Quinovic this tenancy formed on 25 February 2022. The downstairs remained tenanted with the owner remaining as the sole landlord. Legal status

The first landlord claimed the premises, being the “upstairs”, was not unlawful. Given it did not manage the downstair self-contained flat it had no view on that premises status.

The tenants requested a visit from the [City] Council and a staff member from the building compliance completed an inspection. [Image has been removed]

Quinovic response was the upstairs premises was a legal dwelling and therefore able to be tenanted and to do so was not a breach of the RTA. That ignores questions of appropriate firewall separation from another dwelling as a minimum but apart from the letter from Ms Spillman I have no evidence from the tenants to conclude the dwellings physical separation was such that any order relating to unlawful residential premises should be made per Section 78A RTA. Applicants’ case The start

The tenants stated the agent at the showing assured them the premises would get a “full and thorough professional clean due to the state the boys had the house in”, and that Quinovic use a really great company who will do a very thorough job. They claim he said the gardens and grounds would have a full tidy up and a monthly gardener. The tenants asked the agent if it would be possible to meet the downstairs tenant, and the agent responded in the affirmative but said the tenant was away at that time. No meeting occurred before signing or move-in.

The tenants said they quickly looked in the downstairs room and that the agent pointed out some previous water damage in one corner of the room, stating he said it was "due to flooding that came through the garage caused by the drain being blocked” and that he pointed out towards the drain in between the bedroom and garage.

The tenants had not previously considered renting a home with a joined dwelling. It was a big negative to them, but in this instance that was offset by their lengthy and, to that date, unsuccessful search. There were also specific positives on offer, acknowledged by the tenants as being the premises was big enough to fit their large family, in a location they needed for all of the kids schooling and work, and with an amazing view. The family was blending together into this tenancy from two separate tenancies.

The tenants were advised on 4 February 2022, before move-in day, but after giving notice at their existing tenancies, that the house would be put on the market. Discussion of compensation to the tenants if they surrendered the tenancy before moving in occurred but no mutually acceptable agreement was reached. Key day/commencement

The contract was signed and a more detailed meeting between the tenants and the property manager occurred on the move-in day. The tenants claimed a number of prior reassurances were not upheld. Of particular concern was the unnotified change in hot water supply from electric to instant via a gas califont. This served both premises with no separation or metering for the exclusive use.

The tenants had still to meet the downstairs tenant. Even if that occurred, I note the tenants had signed the tenancy agreement beforehand and without any meeting.

The tenants uplifted the keys and went to the premises. Condition at commencement

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA).

Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonable condition.

The tenants discovered a number of problems with the condition of the premises upon entry.

Entry issues as summarised by the tenants were: a. Range hood with visible oil drips on the underside edges, grease filled filters, sticky outside (this range hood went on to drip oil on us and into our food throughout the entire time we lived there) b. Miscellaneous undiscernible splashes, drips and smears on the walls c. Carpets d. Windows e. Chewing gum f. Spiders webs with whole spider families. g. Urine stench h. Lights missing bulbs i. Smoke alarms, not just the ones that needed to be put back up but others needed not present at all. j. Dishwasher filled with broken glass and food scraps k. Shower trap completely clogged resulting in shower overflowing on first attempt at use l. Oven filthy greasy finger print places on chattels list m. Kitchen and windows looked like they had had a wipe down with a smeary dirty cloth. n. More items than expected left from past tenants o. Gardens not done as per promises from Tim. p. We noticed that instead of the wee 9kg gas bottle we had seen at the viewing that there was two large 45kg ones and what looked like a whole new gas system.

The property manager later acknowledged some issues (via email 14 March 2022), writing: I am sorry you were disappointed with the state of the property when you moved in, as I understand you were offered a significant payment by our client to not proceed with the tenancy but chose to proceed. This has unfortunately meant that we have been caught a little on the hop with allowing sufficient time between tenancies to address the issues we were aware of.

On a number of occasions, due to differing issues and reasons, the tenants said they requested rent reductions, but none was forthcoming. There was no application to the Tribunal regarding the issues but the tenants stated they were keeping records with the intent to do so later.

On 14 Mar 2022, Juliet Robinson emailed the tenants. She wrote: Further to our conversation this morning I have provided copies of work orders issued today as a result of our conversation this morning and your earlier email. In summary:

We have a replacement oven ordered which will be delivered by [Company] on Wednesday of this week. We also need to have a builder address the cavity size for the oven to fit properly. Without prejudice we are hoping to have the handiman on site to install this Thursday morning of this week although we have not had confirmation of this time.

As I can see from the Word Orders the light bulbs and smoke alarm were fitted on the 24/2/22 by our handiman. It would seem if 16 bulbs have blown that there may be an electrical wiring issue. We have issued a work order for [Redacted] to investigate, they will be in contact to arrange access.

As you know [Locksmith] have called to fix the lock but this cannot be done until the rollers are repaired this is currently booked in for next Monday (the earliest Exceed could attend)

As far as the glass fragments in the garden are concerned I have someone scheduled or Tuesday 22nd March in the afternoon to come around and pick this up. In terms of the cleanliness of the property I take your comments on board and will discuss further with [redacted] when she returns to the office (grease on switches, chewing gum on ceiling of bedroom, shower drain needed cleaning, garden tidy up, broken glass in grounds).

The tenants emailed a reply on 31 March 2022 and this is copied below. [Image has been removed] [Image has been removed]

The list above was extensive. Many items were addressed while some remained in dispute. Covid isolation in the household did delay some activities.

While the tenants believed a full commercial carpet clean was required, I do not find the photos establish this.

The landlord provided a four-hour professional clean. The tenants believed this was insufficient time to complete the required tasks. It is more usual that that the Tribunal evaluates such invoices when submitted by landlords as vacated cleaning claims – my task remains the same, are the costs/effort claimed commensurate with the evidenced effort? Having done so, it is not unusual to adjust such invoices downwards to reflect what is considered reasonable. In this instance, I consider a professional cleaner could have attended to the tasks, bringing them to a reasonable standard, within the allocated time.

From an overall perspective of the property, the tenants stated that the most part the upper levels were “lovely and warm throughout the time we lived there, however the yellow bedroom conversion in the garage was draftee and frigidly cold through winter”. Downstairs premises

It is accepted at commencement there was no lock between the two premises. A deadbolt was promised but still not installed after four weeks. The tenants used a large buffet unit to block the door. The landlord claimed the door was nailed shut but the tenants stated they had walked through the door. The tenant recounting appeared the more likely.

The tenants raised noise issues from the downstairs tenant early on. The property manager contacted the owner as Quinovic did not manage the downstairs tenancy. The tenants stated that for a few weeks after this his “tv was quieter and his blender didn't happen so late.” The tenants stated there was no sound insulation and “every noise came through”. That may have been the case but insufficient evidence of this and any structural flaws between the premises was provided.

Another problem recounted by the tenants was their water pressure was impacted by the downstairs concurrent use.

I do not find any grounds for specific compensation regarding interference with quiet enjoyment from the downstairs tenant and any failure by the landlord to address have been established. Unlawful entry

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

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. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The occasion cited was when the landlord attended to some outdoor tasks, clearing rubbish from the gardens. It was claimed that the landlord entered the premises via the downstairs door. Emails between the tenants as well as to the landlord were provided.

The landlord recounted her version of the entry. She claims she entered to call out as someone was vacuum cleaning and no knocking could be heard. No further ingress took place.

I find it more than likely the landlord did enter the premises, albeit only through the door. I cannot determine if the door was open or closed. If closed, it was not locked. Such an entry is an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) RTA).

In this instance, having considered the above circumstances, I decline to make any order of exemplary damages. Flood

On or around 8 June the tenants experienced a flooding event in the downstairs area (the garage and bedroom) after heavy rainfall. They were away at the time. They found the area had been subject to a significant flooding event, claiming “we could see that the "carpet" past the foot of the bed was sodden, we could see the floor was wet right up to the wall (under window)”.

The landlord moved quickly and a plumber attended. The tenants claimed the plumber stated the cause was a well blocked drain. This drain had been identified by the tenants at entry as requiring attention, but it did not appear to feature as an unresolved task in the subsequent lists sighted.

The tenants stated the bedroom was a mess. Repairs included drying and removal/replacement of the wall linings. The disruption extended over five weeks. Insurance was available.

I do not find the tenant recounting of the plumber’s comment regarding the drain sufficient to determine that the flooding was an avoidable event, caused only due to a landlord failure to maintain at commencement. I do not award any specific compensation here. Balustrade

The balustrade was a major safety concern from the start and the tenants believed they should never have been allowed to move into this property without it being repaired first. The condition was acknowledged by the landlord and confirmed by the council inspection. The repair was not completed until 19 April 2022. Following the repair the tenants still put barriers in front of this section of balustrade to deter anyone from getting too close as they believed the repair had not been effective. No evidence was available to confirm any fault in the repair once completed.

The balcony was an area the children were not allowed to be unattended throughout the tenancy. The concern of the tenants regarding the stability of the balustrade after the repair is acknowledged. Given the height of the balustrade and the possible drop some caution about the children may have been expected regardless.

The sliding door to this deck was also problematic and a pre-existing problem that should have been addressed before the tenancy commenced. Washing machine

The tenancy included a front-loading washing machine as supplied chattel. This appliance had a water heater and as the only tap water source was cold this was required for any warm or hot washing. It failed and was replaced. The replacement model could not heat water, making cold washing the only option as the landlord would not install a hot water tap. The tenants offered to use their washing machine, with a rent discount requested. No discount was offered but the tenants needed hot water washing and so used their own.

The replacement washing machine was not a like for like. Some compensation is considered due given the tenants had to use their own washing machine to retain the equivalent facility they had at commencement. I have calculated a 19-week period (to the end of the first landlord tenure) and an amount of $5 per week to award compensation of $95.00. I make no award for during the second landlord tenure as I do not consider the second landlord should be bound by the first landlord’s failure. Rodents

The tenants recalled that at entry they we found fresh “rodent poo in one of the few complete kitchen draws”. This was raised with the landlord as well as the damaged bin inserts (holes at the base of both). They further recounted that rodents, “regularly tore open the bin liners causing rubbish and bin juices to fall into the cupboard, often jamming the draws. It was not just an issue of some rodent poo in places, we saw them and even had them leap out of the bins or off the curtains onto us.”

The parties adopted different stances regarding the rodent problem. The tenants believed it was a pre-existing problem that should have been addressed by the landlord before. The landlord claimed no problems had been raised before.

Given the poor state of premises at the end of the last tenancy, it is hard to put much weighting on the lack of prior reporting by those tenants. The grease and other debris outside in the gardens would not have helped pest management but there is a lack of evidence on the extent and any impact of rodents, beyond the likely gnawing of the rubbish bins as shown in the photos.

I do address the bin inserts under this section. Both parties provide photos that show the holes in different states. This may be due to angles or timings of the photos but I do consider the tenants have established grounds, regardless of any rodent activity, to conclude the bin liners were not fit for purpose, the damaged state predated the tenancy and the request for replacement was not considered unreasonable. House sale

The tenants were notified by the landlord on 25 July 2022 that the house had been sold, and advised dates of handover while clarifying the fixed term continues. The tenants were advised of the last date for rent payment to Quinovic as they would cease to be the property manager. It was advised as well that the landlord understood Summit Property Management would commence the property management with a name provided. Summit Real Estate had listed and sold the property but it did not commence as property manager.

There were delays in settlement and no formal advice of the successor was provided to the tenants. Two sections of the RTA have some bearing in a change of landlord.

Section 15 requires that when a landlord’s interest passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days, advise the other party to the tenancy of new contact details, an address for service, a contact phone number and an email address.

Section 43 requires when the landlord disposes of his or her interest in the premises to any other person (here, the purchaser), the landlord shall give to the tenant written notice of the disposition, including the name and contact address of the purchaser so far as those particulars are known to the landlord.

In terms of s 43, having reviewed the confused messaging regarding the settlement, the change in landlord, and the contact details provided, I find the landlord may have passed on the particulars as best known. I consider s 15 has a greater bearing as it is the incoming landlord who should be motivated to ensure rent payments are made to them and that they contact the tenants as soon as possible, even sooner than the statutory 10 working days.

This notification of landlord changeover is discussed later as its impact impacted mostly the second landlord phase. Respondent One’s response

Ms Robinson for the landlord stated her understanding was that at the time of viewing the property the tenants were quite desperate to move into a rental property as they had been looking for quite some time and had been unsuccessful in securing anywhere.

It was acknowledged that it took time to get the property and the required repairs and maintenance items completed.

The gas did supply both upstairs and downstairs. The landlord was unsure what verbal agreement the tenants and the property manager came to with regards to apportioning amounts for invoicing but from reading the emails she believed it the tenants accepted a 70/30 split with the single occupant downstairs.

With regards to the sale, Quinovic was not informed at the time of taking the management that the owner had any intention to sell, or it would not have taken on the management. The moment this was bought to its attention she believes the landlord followed correct RTA procedures and notified the tenants.

Ms Robinson recalled informing the owner that it did not feel it fair to sell the property since the tenants had just accepted their tenancy. From the evidence it appears the decision to sell was forced due to the circumstances of the owner and not premeditated.

Once the property sale settled on 10 August 2022 Quinovic property management also ceased.

The landlord recounted that the new owner did approach it at one stage asking it to continue to manage the property, but she felt that this was not in our best interests, and so declined.

She confirmed Quinovic had had no further involvement with the tenant 1 , the new owner, nor the property since August 2022.

The landlord also provided evidence of a number of work orders and, post hearing, a series of photos as she attended the hearing with numerous photos on a USB stick – they were of no evidential use at that time. These photos, at times, contrast to near equivalents provided by the tenants, leaving some question as to the actual condition in areas. The framing of such photos can create different impressions.

The work orders provided by the landlord reflect significant activity, albeit some later than they should have been, and a number due to prior issues that should 1 The second landlord refers to conversations with Quinovic afterwards but I accept these were informal and response to an approach to Quinovic for advice or information regarding the gas supply practice. have been resolved before the tenants raised them. The Covid isolation in the house did delay some contractors. There also appears to have been fairly frequent contact 2 , both in person and via email. This was necessitated and reflected deficiencies requiring attention and delays or disputes regarding resolution. I note the different perspectives of the parties regarding a number of tasks resolution status; completed, or not, to a reasonably standard. Claims against the Landlord - second respondent

The claims against the second landlord made were varied from the original application to seek compensation of $65,000 for: a. Landlord interfering with supply of services to premises 45 (1A,2A) x3 times gas and avoidable, with every attempt by tenant to organise and prevent this happening. b. Landlord interfering with supply of services to premises 45 - Failed to supply gardener as per our tenancy agreement. c. Landlord entered the property under false pretences. d. Landlord coming onto property without notice and took photos. e. Harassment and bullying, interference of peace, comfort or privacy of tenant.

The tenants stated that on 14 August 2022 they made contact with the new landlord, requesting gas to be supplied and a time to meet or call to discuss the tenancy and the plans moving forward for utilities. They said they had a brief call with her and she promised she would organise gas for the start of the week. Other administrative matters such as the rent payment bank account details were also confirmed. The tenants understood she was going to come to [City] to discuss the tenancy and utilities and they believe they were told the new owners were wanting to keep the property as a rental for roughly 10 years before moving into it themselves. No meeting took place. Covid reared again, this time with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged her failure to advise the tenants she would not make the meeting. 2 In an email in late March, [redacted] told the tenants, “I am concerned that you feel that your requests for a meeting were not responded to and that you feel your emails have not been addressed as of yet. I personally met with you at the property on Monday 28th February and again on Friday 11th March. Juliet also met with you at the property on Thursday 17th March.” Utilities

The change in owner and property manager meant the prior LPG supply arrangement ceased.

The tenants provided a detailed timeline of the concerns and lack of resupply. The landlord responded with the challenges experienced.

I will not recount all the details in this order. Suffice to say the tenants experienced some outages due to no gas and they had to actively pursue the landlord. No regular supply as established.

The landlord advised she would not be seeking any compensation from the tenants for the gas or electricity costs incurred during the tenancy.

I estimate an approximate windfall to the tenants of $1,405.00 and this is considered fair compensation for the problems experienced. Gardener

I accept the new landlords did not attend to the gardens. This is factored into a compensation total below for this, and other, failures of the landlord. Entry

The tenants claimed the landlord had come onto the property without notice and entered the property under false pretences.

The issue appears to be the new owners taking the opportunity to take some photos of themselves on the property after settlement. Some tenant evidenced was obtained from the owner’s social media page, where the owner shared their excitement at purchasing the property.

I find the photo breaches to be minimal, the upset to the tenants notwithstanding. The landlord also served other notices for entry that the tenants challenged. No actual inspection took place.

These landlord actions have been recognised in the compensation awarded below. Quiet enjoyment

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). 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 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).

Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment.

The owners were accidental landlords who inherited two tenancies with issues. I accept they attempted to obtain professional property management later, and if the statements are correct, they were rejected by the previous property manager and declined by another.

I have carefully considered the messages and submissions. It is unfortunate that Covid impacted a face-to-face meeting as that may have avoided what became a difficult relationship. However, I do not find the tenants quiet enjoyment was so impacted that it formed harassment and therefore an unlawful act.

The cited and evidenced failures of the owners to meet what would be considered a reasonable level of meeting their landlord obligations is addressed below. Respondent Two’s response

The landlord acknowledged they did request to come for a visit or inspection but said as this was denied she never entered the property.

In response to the tenants providing photos showing her husband at the property 3 , she wrote. I posted on social media yes that is my post and my husband and his friend went to put the sold sign on and asked summit agent to inform them that my husband will come to put the sold sign on and just walk outside but can't go to property, so they knew. So my husband took few pictures of house and left. 3 It is accepted that prior to purchasing the property the husband had visited and spoken to the tenants. This is not considered of any significance as that meeting was prepurchase and not during their landlord tenure.

She further wrote, “We bought a house and knew there will be tenants and but we wanted it empty but when my husband went to view the house and chat with them they wanted to stay on the property and requested to give them time, so with good faith my husband did ask Summit to not vacate them, let them be there until we take over and decide what we want to do with the property.” This confirms some discussion with Summit regarding the tenancy – with the likely intent that Summit would take over as believed by the outgoing landlord. It is also confirms a concerning expectation of the owners of a right to terminate that was not available to them during the fixed-term.

The landlord said that after taking over the property they later decided they wanted to move back to [City] (they were living in Christchurch) and they gave the tenants a notice (dated 30 October 2022) to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. She said this was after looking at Tenancy Services information and talking to someone. She wrote that the advice was they can give the tenant “60 days or 90 days notice, so l got the form and filled it and when l read both categories were applicable on my situation” so she selected both, but we knew we have to give them 90 days notice.”. Further confusion was caused as one reason given for the notice was that the vacant possession was required due to an unconditional sale, while the other was that the premises was required for the owner. The notice was poorly drafted, but I consider it to be that only with no other intent.

Regarding the gas supply, the landlord stated she applied for an account to be opened with the supplier and that took a day to open. The actual delivery was a week later as the delivery cycle was every Tuesday and Thursday. She said she spoke with Quinovic as the need for resupply seems excessive and they advised the premises used two bottles and was replaced every five weeks. In the written submission she wrote: So how come every second week [Tenant 1] needed the 60kg gas bottle. As l understood that the delivery was gona be Done every 3rd week for 1 bottle. l did mentioned supplying weekly but l thought it was a 20 kg bottle but than upon asking the quinovic was told 60 kg that's when l changed to 3 weekly.

The landlord said the reason for not making the scheduled on-site meeting was that the whole family had Covid and they could not travel from Christchurch. She acknowledged she failed to advise the tenants of this, compounding an already fraught situation.

Elsewhere in the written submission the landlord recalls telling the tenants of their own situation but that the tenants were more “concerned about fixing the house and other things”. They said they could not afford it “as we just bought the house, so we wanted to move in and save money than to repairs.”

The landlord concluded her submission by stating, “We are a simple people with genuine mistake and misunderstanding which could have talked over but [Tenant 1] never wanted to she always wanted to go to court, l mean for 3x gas bottles not supplied can cost a landlord 65k l would never miss it.”

The landlord advised at the hearing that she had absorbed all utility costs incurred during the tenancy and she would not be seeking compensation from the tenants for this. The premises were returned in good condition. A shorter termination period for the tenant benefit was provided and utilised and she said a good reference had been provided to the next landlord. Analysis

I consider the tenants were aware of the property condition at signing but they had a reasonable expectation the obvious issues would be addressed as promised. It is clear the two parties had different interpretations of what is reasonable condition but equally, some failures were mutually acknowledged. I can only ponder if the tardiness to prepare the premises appropriately for the new tenancy was in anticipation of the tenants accepting what was a significant financial incentive to surrender the tenancy before move in.

I do not agree with the landlord that the refusal to surrender the tenancy was a negotiating tactic. I consider it more reflects the long search for a suitable tenancy and the lack of alternatives at that time. While financially attractive, the wheels were in motion for the two existing tenancies to end and, without a confirmed alternative to move to, the potential downsides diminished any potential benefit from such an action. Whatever the reasons for the delays, the tenants did not enjoy a premises in reasonable condition at the commencement.

The tenants had an overlap of rent payable during the end of their previous tenancies and the start of this one. They used some that period to prepare the house before the families moved in, mitigating what would have been a more significant impact if a full move-in occurred. A deferral in the commencement to ensure its readiness would have reduced the double rent spend during this time.

The failure of the existing electric hot water cylinder before this tenancy prompted the owner to install an alternate LPG instant hot water system. The use of a single califont for the two premises hot water supply was always going to make exclusive use apportionment problematic. Given the tenant payments to the first landlord towards the cost of gas were later repaid to the tenant (after they requested it), the landlord has effectively already done what I would have ordered. The second landlord has also absorbed the costs. The other impact from change from electricity to LPG was the failure to ensure continuous supply. Establishing this can be a challenge at the best of times, so it is not unexpected that the process here, with two separate users of a new hot water heating source, and a change in owner/contracted party, generated some issues. It appeared to settle before the change in owner upset the resupply process with further impacts.

While the tenants raised many issues and impacts, I had some difficultly aligning all of these with the supporting evidence. Compensation

Some compensation has already been provided through both respondents’ approach to utility costs, either via refunding or absorbing. This totals approximately $1,900.00.

Further grounds for compensation have been established and the following awards are made: First respondent

The tenants are awarded the equivalent of 1.5 weeks rent ($1,030.00 rounded) for the landlord’s failure or delays to provide the premises in reasonable condition and the subsequent impacts, as traversed in this order.

A separate compensation of $300.00 is ordered for the initial landlord failures to ensure smoke alarms were correctly positioned (s 45(1)(ba)) and the premises could be secured (s 46). I have not determined exemplary damages for either as appropriate.

The tenants are awarded $95.00 compensation for the use of their washing machine to maintain a hot washing capability. Second respondent

It is difficult to ascertain exactly what the new owner awareness of their landlord obligations were. I remain uncertain if they were poorly advised or ignored any such advice.

Some issues might have been avoided if a suitable property manager was successfully engaged by the landlord. In the absence of this, I have considered the efforts required of the tenants (and impacts on them) as well as the saving to the landlord in avoiding fees for such a service. I find general compensation should be awarded and I have used the approximately 18-week second landlord tenure and used 10% of rent 4 to award $1,233.00 to the tenants as compensation for the landlords’ failures to meet their obligations during this period. 4 This percentage is at the higher end of typical property management commissions but this recognises other likely management fixed costs that were avoided, such as establishment, managing work orders etc. Application filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee, apportioned across the two respondents. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenants’ requested suppression. I consider they have had sufficient success to justify suppression of their details, if not automatically then through my exercise of the Tribunal’s initiative. Tenant name suppression is ordered. Timing of the order

The delay in releasing this order reflects a significant volume of evidence to revisit and consider. The patience of the parties is appreciated.