What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4477941 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4477941?

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 4477941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4477941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10024763-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4477941 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4477941?

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 4477941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4477941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10024763-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4477941 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4477941 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 (5913468-002) to [the landlord] immediately

Reasons

The landlord’s agent’s counsel and property manager attended the hearing for the landlords’ agent. 1
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlord claims for rent and water arrears, and compensation.
The tenant seeks compensation for various maintenance issues and harassment. Background
The tenancy began on 22 June 2022 and ended by a Tribunal order on 8 April 2023.
The house is a modern four-bedroom townhouse with cedar weatherboards and aluminium joinery. It is set on a reasonably-sized, bushed section.
The tenant lived at the premises with her young daughter who attended school nearby.
The tenancy was an unhappy one for both parties. The tenant has catalogued 23 grievances starting from the beginning of the tenancy, when there was no electricity or hot water, to the end of the tenancy, when the landlord declined to provide the tenant with a positive reference. In between the beginning and end of the tenancy, the more serious problems included wooden laminate on the stairs failing and a serious wasp infestation.
The tenant lost her job during the tenancy and struggled to pay the rent. The rent arrears were almost $14,000.00 by the end of the tenancy. 2
The tenant’s original claim, filed on 16 November 2022 was for the wooden laminate floor issue. However, by the time of the first hearing on 7 February 2024, the flooring had been repaired, leaving only the issue of compensation for loss of amenity to be decided. However, the landlord had by then filed a cross- application for rent arrears and the tenant wanted to pursue the catalogue of further claims referred to.
At the last hearing, the tenant had uploaded the list of 23 issues to the file, but the landlord had not received a copy of them, and the Tribunal’s version of the document had formatting issues. 1 This is a reserved decision. I heard the case at North Shore District Court on 27 February 2024. 2 The tenant ceased paying rent altogether from 1 February 2023. On 22 March 2023, the Tribunal ordered the tenant to immediately pay rent of $2,417.14 and pay weekly rent at a reduced rate, but the tenant paid no rent at all despite the Tribunal’s order.
The issues for determination are: a. What amount should be ordered for rent and water arrears? b. Should the landlord be reimbursed for its costs for cleaning and repairing the premises after the tenancy ended? c. Should the tenant be compensated for the problems at the premises? d. Should the tenant be compensated for harassment?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlords’ agent provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy for rent and water prior to the tenant’s claims being considered.

Should the landlord be compensated for cleaning and damage?

At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 3
The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 4 Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to do to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. 5
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In this case, the tenant was dissatisfied with the standard of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, so the landlord sent a cleaner to the premises on 23 June 2022 who did further cleaning at a cost of $230.00 to the landlord. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 4 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 5 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
Having viewed the photographs of the premises taken a few days after the tenancy ended and heard the parties’ submissions, I am satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s photographs show that parts of the premises needed further cleaning to bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard overall. I allow 50 percent of the amount claimed for standard cleaning, carpet cleaning, and the decks because I consider that the full amount exceeds what was required to meet the appropriate standard. The amount sought for the oven cleaning is allowed in full.
There was some minor wall damage that occurred during the tenancy. It is in the nature of damage that might have been caused by the tenant’s movers being careless.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 6
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.

Should the Tribunal order compensation for problems at the premises?

Electricity, hot water, fibre, Sky TV

The first four issues the tenant raised have been resolved. A determination is not required. Door locks
The main front door access was via an electronic keypad. The landlord did not supply keys for about five other external doors that had keyed locks. These doors could be locked from the inside but could not be accessed from outside if they were locked due to the lack of any keys. 6 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
The tenant reported the situation on 4 July 2022. The landlord provided a bundle of keys on 25 July 2022 but none of them worked. A locksmith was contracted to attend on 28 July 2022, but access was not provided. The locks were eventually re-barrelled with new keys provided on 10 August 2022.
The landlord was not obliged to provide keys for the secondary external doors. 7 The lack of keys does not mean the premises were not reasonably secure. It is common for keys to go missing for one reason or another and that does not mean that it is reasonably likely that the missing key has got into the hands of a would-be burglar for example.
The landlord did not breach its obligations and helpfully accommodated the tenant by providing new barrels and keys.
It would not be appropriate to find against the landlord in this regard. Curtains and privacy
The landlord and the tenant agreed prior to the tenant moving in that the landlord would install sufficient curtains and blinds for privacy.
The landlord installed curtains in the bedrooms, but not in the kitchen and about eight other windows.
The tenant asked the landlord for more blinds on 22 June 2022, the day the tenancy began. The landlord provided further curtains and blinds within about a month.
The tenant complains she had to meet the curtain contractor at the premises twice.
I do not find the landlord breached its obligations under the RTA or its agreement with the tenant to supply curtains and blinds as needed.
The landlord provided curtains if thought sufficient for privacy in the first instance, then provided more blinds when the tenant disagreed with the landlord’s assessment of what blinds were necessary for the tenant’s reasonable privacy.
I do not consider the tenant suffered any significant intrusion or interference that would warrant compensation for loss of amenity. 7 I note that under s 46 of the RTA, the landlord’s obligation is to “ensure that the premises are reasonably secure”. Flooring
The premises were newly renovated, including having had new laminate flooring installed.
Unfortunately, the laminate peeled away on some of the stairs, possibly due to defective installation or a product failure.
The tenant first reported a problem on 4 July 2022. The landlord had the contractor remediate the stairs because the work was still under warranty. However, the recurring floor problem was not fully remedied until 9 December 2022.
The landlord is obliged to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 8
When the laminate edge peeled away, the stairs were a tripping hazard and therefore they were not in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord therefore did not meet its obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I calculate the tenant’s loss of amenity in the vicinity of four to five percent of the weekly rent for the period 4 July to 9 December when the problem was occurring.
Compensation of $1,200.00 is ordered. Smoke alarms
The tenant claimed the premises used her own smoke alarms because the premises’ smoke alarms were not working.
The landlord denied the tenant’s claim and submitted an invoice for two new smoke alarms having been installed in June of 2022.
It is not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached its smoke alarm obligations. 8 RTA, s 45(1)(b). Incorrect alarm code
The tenant says the landlord is responsible for an incorrect alarm code being shared resulting in the alarm going off periodically until a technician arrived five hours later.
The landlord denies it gave the tenant incorrect information. It is not clear why the alarm went off on this occasion or whose fault (if anyone’s) it was. In any event, the landlord responded promptly send a contractor who reset the alarm at a cost to the landlord of $171.06.
Alarms can be problematic from time to time through not fault of the landlord.
I do not find it proven that the landlord breached its obligations in respect to the alarm. Ensuite shower blocked
The master bedroom’s ensuite shower drain got blocked so water would not drain quickly enough. The tenant reported the problem on 25 July 2022 and a contractor unblocked the drain on 10 August 2022. Building detritus from the renovation works were the likely main contributing cause of the blockage.
The Tribunal orders $100.00 nominal damages for the tenant’s loss of amenity. Shower rail coming away
The newly installed shower rail came away from the wall due to poor installation.
The landlord had a contractor deal with the problem within a few days. However, the tenant’s daughter was given a scare and the tenant was inconvenienced by this aspect of the premises not being provided in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tribunal orders $50.00 nominal damages for loss of amenity. Blocked toilet
One of the premises’ toilets blocked. The tenant reported the problem on 28 November 2022 and a contractor unblocked it on 1 December 2022.
A blocked toilet is a routine maintenance issue.
There is no breach by the landlord, and it has not been shown the premises were not maintained to a reasonable standard. Tree maintenance
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not adequately maintain the premises’ trees.
The landlord denies the tenant’s claim.
The photographs do not show how or why the trees were problematic. The trees were suspected of facilitating a suspected rat problem (discussed below) Otherwise, there is no complaint by the tenant or correspondence between the parties relating to the trees prior to the parties falling into dispute.
The landlord had the trees trimmed on two occasions during the tenancy.
I do not find it proven that the landlord did not reasonably maintain the trees. Ceiling fan
The tenant reported the ceiling fan in the master bedroom was not working on 28 December 2022 during the suspected rat infestation. It was replaced on 2 February 2023.
The landlord accepts the fan was not working until 2 February 2023.
The Tribunal orders $50.00 for the loss of amenity. Water meter needing to be replaced
The tenant complains about the premises’ water meter having to be replaced.
Watercare must ensure that water meters work properly. Landlords may not refuse Watercare permission to replace its water meters.
I cannot see how the landlord has done anything wrong or why it should be required to compensate the tenant in this regard.
The tenant’s claim in this regard is dismissed. Wasp infestation
On 6 December 2022, the tenant reported scratching in the master bedroom walls that was “likely mice or rats from the sounds”.
The landlord had a contractor lay bait the next day and took other steps relevant to rat control to no avail. On 9 January 2023, a contractor removed give to access the rats, but no signs of rats or mice were found.
It transpired that the scratching noises were due a wasp infestation. Wasp eradication was done on 10 January 2023. The master bedroom’s gib was reinstated on 17 January 2023.
The landlord addressed the infestation within a reasonable period of time.
There was no breach by the landlord in respect to what was a natural phenomenon. Nonetheless, the tenant should be compensated for the loss of amenity in the premises. She could not use the bedroom and was greatly stressed by the infestation. She had to deal with multiple contractor visits and communications until the issue was resolved. She or other family members had to sleep in the lounge.
I consider compensation in the order of 15 percent of the weekly rent is an appropriate amount to order for loss of amenity.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay compensation of $1,200.00 in the circumstances. Garage side door
The tenant reported a problem with the garage’s side door on 10 February 2023.
The landlord had the door repaired on 20 February 2023.
The landlord repaired the door within a reasonable time. There was no breach.
The claim in this regard is not allowed. Compensation for time off work and general inconvenience
The tenant did not establish a credible narrative that she had to take time off work to deal with issues at the premises.
The tenant would have been inconvenienced by some of the issues that arose at the premises. The tenants orders for loss of amenity factor that in where appropriate.
No additional order will be made for inconvenience. Flooding
The tenant did not establish a credible narrative that the premises suffered unduly from flooding.
The house did not flood during the record rainfall event during Auckland Anniversary Weekend in 2023, which demonstrates that the house was not unduly vulnerable to flooding.
Parts of the section were under water as a result of the Anniversary Weekend deluge, but it has not been shown there was any undue impact on the tenant as a result. Landlord seeking termination yet not providing a positive reference
The tenant was dismayed that the landlord refused to provide her with a positive reference despite it wanting to terminate her tenancy.
It is difficult to reconcile this claim with the fact the tenant owed significant rent arrears and had not even paid the reduced amount of rent the Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay.
When prospective landlords ask a prior landlord for a reference, the prior landlord should tell the truth about their tenants. One of the most obvious questions they will be asked is whether a tenant paid the rent on time. Another is whether the landlord has had to take proceedings against the tenant.
The landlord could only answer such basic questions negatively. Foul smell from creek
The tenant complains about a foul smell emanating from the creek at the bottom of the section.
The landlord disputes the claim. The landlord’s agent’s branch manager lives next door to the premises and says the creek does not typically smell bad.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was foul creek smell that the landlord was obliged to tell the tenant about prior to the tenancy beginning.

Did the property manager harass the tenant?

The tenant complains that the property manager harassed her. She says, among other things, the property manager came to the premises without notice and yelled at her through an open door.
The property manager accepts she went to the premises on 22 February 2023 to speak with the tenant about the rent being $6,000.00 in arrears. She says the front door was open, so she knocked on the door. The tenant closed the door, but the garage door was still open, so she called out that to the tenant that she still had to pay rent.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 9 Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act.
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". 10
Black’s Law Dictionary 11 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.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 12 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure
I have considered the parties’ evidence about the property manager’s visit and reviewed the correspondence between the parties during the tenancy.
The property manager was entitled to go to the premises to speak with the tenant about the rent arrears. I am not satisfied that her conduct was improper on that occasion.
Moreover, it has not been shown that the property manager acted in a less than diligent and professional manner bearing in mind it was her duty to act for the landlord. Sometimes the property manager was the bearer of bad news and had to communicate that to the tenant in stressful circumstances. That is a property manager’s lot. 9 RTA, s 38(2). 10 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 11 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 12 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
The property manager performed her job properly by not shirking from challenging tasks. The evidence shows that the property manager acted appropriately in her dealings with the tenant.
I reject the tenant’s claims of harassment and this claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication.
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.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The parties names and identifying details including the premises’ address must not be published.

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 (5913468-002) to [the landlord] immediately

Reasons

The landlord’s agent’s counsel and property manager attended the hearing for the landlords’ agent. 1
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlord claims for rent and water arrears, and compensation.
The tenant seeks compensation for various maintenance issues and harassment. Background
The tenancy began on 22 June 2022 and ended by a Tribunal order on 8 April 2023.
The house is a modern four-bedroom townhouse with cedar weatherboards and aluminium joinery. It is set on a reasonably-sized, bushed section.
The tenant lived at the premises with her young daughter who attended school nearby.
The tenancy was an unhappy one for both parties. The tenant has catalogued 23 grievances starting from the beginning of the tenancy, when there was no electricity or hot water, to the end of the tenancy, when the landlord declined to provide the tenant with a positive reference. In between the beginning and end of the tenancy, the more serious problems included wooden laminate on the stairs failing and a serious wasp infestation.
The tenant lost her job during the tenancy and struggled to pay the rent. The rent arrears were almost $14,000.00 by the end of the tenancy. 2
The tenant’s original claim, filed on 16 November 2022 was for the wooden laminate floor issue. However, by the time of the first hearing on 7 February 2024, the flooring had been repaired, leaving only the issue of compensation for loss of amenity to be decided. However, the landlord had by then filed a cross- application for rent arrears and the tenant wanted to pursue the catalogue of further claims referred to.
At the last hearing, the tenant had uploaded the list of 23 issues to the file, but the landlord had not received a copy of them, and the Tribunal’s version of the document had formatting issues. 1 This is a reserved decision. I heard the case at North Shore District Court on 27 February 2024. 2 The tenant ceased paying rent altogether from 1 February 2023. On 22 March 2023, the Tribunal ordered the tenant to immediately pay rent of $2,417.14 and pay weekly rent at a reduced rate, but the tenant paid no rent at all despite the Tribunal’s order.
The issues for determination are: a. What amount should be ordered for rent and water arrears? b. Should the landlord be reimbursed for its costs for cleaning and repairing the premises after the tenancy ended? c. Should the tenant be compensated for the problems at the premises? d. Should the tenant be compensated for harassment?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlords’ agent provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy for rent and water prior to the tenant’s claims being considered.

Should the landlord be compensated for cleaning and damage?

At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 3
The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 4 Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to do to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. 5
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In this case, the tenant was dissatisfied with the standard of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, so the landlord sent a cleaner to the premises on 23 June 2022 who did further cleaning at a cost of $230.00 to the landlord. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 4 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 5 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
Having viewed the photographs of the premises taken a few days after the tenancy ended and heard the parties’ submissions, I am satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s photographs show that parts of the premises needed further cleaning to bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard overall. I allow 50 percent of the amount claimed for standard cleaning, carpet cleaning, and the decks because I consider that the full amount exceeds what was required to meet the appropriate standard. The amount sought for the oven cleaning is allowed in full.
There was some minor wall damage that occurred during the tenancy. It is in the nature of damage that might have been caused by the tenant’s movers being careless.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 6
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.

Should the Tribunal order compensation for problems at the premises?

Electricity, hot water, fibre, Sky TV

The first four issues the tenant raised have been resolved. A determination is not required. Door locks
The main front door access was via an electronic keypad. The landlord did not supply keys for about five other external doors that had keyed locks. These doors could be locked from the inside but could not be accessed from outside if they were locked due to the lack of any keys. 6 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
The tenant reported the situation on 4 July 2022. The landlord provided a bundle of keys on 25 July 2022 but none of them worked. A locksmith was contracted to attend on 28 July 2022, but access was not provided. The locks were eventually re-barrelled with new keys provided on 10 August 2022.
The landlord was not obliged to provide keys for the secondary external doors. 7 The lack of keys does not mean the premises were not reasonably secure. It is common for keys to go missing for one reason or another and that does not mean that it is reasonably likely that the missing key has got into the hands of a would-be burglar for example.
The landlord did not breach its obligations and helpfully accommodated the tenant by providing new barrels and keys.
It would not be appropriate to find against the landlord in this regard. Curtains and privacy
The landlord and the tenant agreed prior to the tenant moving in that the landlord would install sufficient curtains and blinds for privacy.
The landlord installed curtains in the bedrooms, but not in the kitchen and about eight other windows.
The tenant asked the landlord for more blinds on 22 June 2022, the day the tenancy began. The landlord provided further curtains and blinds within about a month.
The tenant complains she had to meet the curtain contractor at the premises twice.
I do not find the landlord breached its obligations under the RTA or its agreement with the tenant to supply curtains and blinds as needed.
The landlord provided curtains if thought sufficient for privacy in the first instance, then provided more blinds when the tenant disagreed with the landlord’s assessment of what blinds were necessary for the tenant’s reasonable privacy.
I do not consider the tenant suffered any significant intrusion or interference that would warrant compensation for loss of amenity. 7 I note that under s 46 of the RTA, the landlord’s obligation is to “ensure that the premises are reasonably secure”. Flooring
The premises were newly renovated, including having had new laminate flooring installed.
Unfortunately, the laminate peeled away on some of the stairs, possibly due to defective installation or a product failure.
The tenant first reported a problem on 4 July 2022. The landlord had the contractor remediate the stairs because the work was still under warranty. However, the recurring floor problem was not fully remedied until 9 December 2022.
The landlord is obliged to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 8
When the laminate edge peeled away, the stairs were a tripping hazard and therefore they were not in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord therefore did not meet its obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I calculate the tenant’s loss of amenity in the vicinity of four to five percent of the weekly rent for the period 4 July to 9 December when the problem was occurring.
Compensation of $1,200.00 is ordered. Smoke alarms
The tenant claimed the premises used her own smoke alarms because the premises’ smoke alarms were not working.
The landlord denied the tenant’s claim and submitted an invoice for two new smoke alarms having been installed in June of 2022.
It is not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached its smoke alarm obligations. 8 RTA, s 45(1)(b). Incorrect alarm code
The tenant says the landlord is responsible for an incorrect alarm code being shared resulting in the alarm going off periodically until a technician arrived five hours later.
The landlord denies it gave the tenant incorrect information. It is not clear why the alarm went off on this occasion or whose fault (if anyone’s) it was. In any event, the landlord responded promptly send a contractor who reset the alarm at a cost to the landlord of $171.06.
Alarms can be problematic from time to time through not fault of the landlord.
I do not find it proven that the landlord breached its obligations in respect to the alarm. Ensuite shower blocked
The master bedroom’s ensuite shower drain got blocked so water would not drain quickly enough. The tenant reported the problem on 25 July 2022 and a contractor unblocked the drain on 10 August 2022. Building detritus from the renovation works were the likely main contributing cause of the blockage.
The Tribunal orders $100.00 nominal damages for the tenant’s loss of amenity. Shower rail coming away
The newly installed shower rail came away from the wall due to poor installation.
The landlord had a contractor deal with the problem within a few days. However, the tenant’s daughter was given a scare and the tenant was inconvenienced by this aspect of the premises not being provided in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tribunal orders $50.00 nominal damages for loss of amenity. Blocked toilet
One of the premises’ toilets blocked. The tenant reported the problem on 28 November 2022 and a contractor unblocked it on 1 December 2022.
A blocked toilet is a routine maintenance issue.
There is no breach by the landlord, and it has not been shown the premises were not maintained to a reasonable standard. Tree maintenance
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not adequately maintain the premises’ trees.
The landlord denies the tenant’s claim.
The photographs do not show how or why the trees were problematic. The trees were suspected of facilitating a suspected rat problem (discussed below) Otherwise, there is no complaint by the tenant or correspondence between the parties relating to the trees prior to the parties falling into dispute.
The landlord had the trees trimmed on two occasions during the tenancy.
I do not find it proven that the landlord did not reasonably maintain the trees. Ceiling fan
The tenant reported the ceiling fan in the master bedroom was not working on 28 December 2022 during the suspected rat infestation. It was replaced on 2 February 2023.
The landlord accepts the fan was not working until 2 February 2023.
The Tribunal orders $50.00 for the loss of amenity. Water meter needing to be replaced
The tenant complains about the premises’ water meter having to be replaced.
Watercare must ensure that water meters work properly. Landlords may not refuse Watercare permission to replace its water meters.
I cannot see how the landlord has done anything wrong or why it should be required to compensate the tenant in this regard.
The tenant’s claim in this regard is dismissed. Wasp infestation
On 6 December 2022, the tenant reported scratching in the master bedroom walls that was “likely mice or rats from the sounds”.
The landlord had a contractor lay bait the next day and took other steps relevant to rat control to no avail. On 9 January 2023, a contractor removed give to access the rats, but no signs of rats or mice were found.
It transpired that the scratching noises were due a wasp infestation. Wasp eradication was done on 10 January 2023. The master bedroom’s gib was reinstated on 17 January 2023.
The landlord addressed the infestation within a reasonable period of time.
There was no breach by the landlord in respect to what was a natural phenomenon. Nonetheless, the tenant should be compensated for the loss of amenity in the premises. She could not use the bedroom and was greatly stressed by the infestation. She had to deal with multiple contractor visits and communications until the issue was resolved. She or other family members had to sleep in the lounge.
I consider compensation in the order of 15 percent of the weekly rent is an appropriate amount to order for loss of amenity.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay compensation of $1,200.00 in the circumstances. Garage side door
The tenant reported a problem with the garage’s side door on 10 February 2023.
The landlord had the door repaired on 20 February 2023.
The landlord repaired the door within a reasonable time. There was no breach.
The claim in this regard is not allowed. Compensation for time off work and general inconvenience
The tenant did not establish a credible narrative that she had to take time off work to deal with issues at the premises.
The tenant would have been inconvenienced by some of the issues that arose at the premises. The tenants orders for loss of amenity factor that in where appropriate.
No additional order will be made for inconvenience. Flooding
The tenant did not establish a credible narrative that the premises suffered unduly from flooding.
The house did not flood during the record rainfall event during Auckland Anniversary Weekend in 2023, which demonstrates that the house was not unduly vulnerable to flooding.
Parts of the section were under water as a result of the Anniversary Weekend deluge, but it has not been shown there was any undue impact on the tenant as a result. Landlord seeking termination yet not providing a positive reference
The tenant was dismayed that the landlord refused to provide her with a positive reference despite it wanting to terminate her tenancy.
It is difficult to reconcile this claim with the fact the tenant owed significant rent arrears and had not even paid the reduced amount of rent the Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay.
When prospective landlords ask a prior landlord for a reference, the prior landlord should tell the truth about their tenants. One of the most obvious questions they will be asked is whether a tenant paid the rent on time. Another is whether the landlord has had to take proceedings against the tenant.
The landlord could only answer such basic questions negatively. Foul smell from creek
The tenant complains about a foul smell emanating from the creek at the bottom of the section.
The landlord disputes the claim. The landlord’s agent’s branch manager lives next door to the premises and says the creek does not typically smell bad.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was foul creek smell that the landlord was obliged to tell the tenant about prior to the tenancy beginning.

Did the property manager harass the tenant?

The tenant complains that the property manager harassed her. She says, among other things, the property manager came to the premises without notice and yelled at her through an open door.
The property manager accepts she went to the premises on 22 February 2023 to speak with the tenant about the rent being $6,000.00 in arrears. She says the front door was open, so she knocked on the door. The tenant closed the door, but the garage door was still open, so she called out that to the tenant that she still had to pay rent.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 9 Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act.
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". 10
Black’s Law Dictionary 11 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.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 12 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure
I have considered the parties’ evidence about the property manager’s visit and reviewed the correspondence between the parties during the tenancy.
The property manager was entitled to go to the premises to speak with the tenant about the rent arrears. I am not satisfied that her conduct was improper on that occasion.
Moreover, it has not been shown that the property manager acted in a less than diligent and professional manner bearing in mind it was her duty to act for the landlord. Sometimes the property manager was the bearer of bad news and had to communicate that to the tenant in stressful circumstances. That is a property manager’s lot. 9 RTA, s 38(2). 10 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 11 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 12 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
The property manager performed her job properly by not shirking from challenging tasks. The evidence shows that the property manager acted appropriately in her dealings with the tenant.
I reject the tenant’s claims of harassment and this claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication.
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.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The parties names and identifying details including the premises’ address must not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4477941 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 4477941 — Rent arrears

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Should the landlord be compensated for cleaning and damage?

Should the Tribunal order compensation for problems at the premises?

Did the property manager harass the tenant?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Should the landlord be compensated for cleaning and damage?

Should the Tribunal order compensation for problems at the premises?

Did the property manager harass the tenant?