How much money was awarded in case 4486461?

Compensation: Additional Electricity: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Use Of Water: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Wood Storage: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Overpaid Rent: $535.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4486461?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4486461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9511029-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4486461?

Compensation: Additional Electricity: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Use Of Water: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Wood Storage: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Overpaid Rent: $535.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4486461?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4486461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9511029-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4486461 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4486461 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4486461 — net $816.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of overpaid rent	$535.71	Refund of overpaid rent
Compensation: Use of water	$20.00	Use of water
Compensation: Additional electricity	$20.00	Additional electricity
Compensation: Wood storage	$220.00	Wood storage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$816.15
Bond	$2,070.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$816.15

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,070.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $796.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 th June 2023.

The tenancy was from 1 st August 2014 until 26 th February 2023.

It would be fair to describe the relationship between the parties as strained at least towards the end of the tenancy. Both parties described the time of the tenancy as “lamentable”.

[The tenant/s] made an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant, refund of the bond and moving out costs.

Specifically, the tenant said: a. The landlord would frequently be at the premises doing work unannounced; b. The landlord would do gardening work that the tenants did not agree with. c. The gardening projects undertaken by the landlord would be ‘endless’. d. The landlord would be there for most good weather days, which limited the tenant’s ability to relax. e. The landlord would be undertaking work at the premises for days on end. f. When the landlord did gardening work, she would leave piles of garden waste on the section or in the gardens that the tenants were displeased with. g. When the landlord would undertake work, it would be at a slow pace and routinely go beyond the landlord’s time estimate for the job. h. The landlord forbade the tenants from speaking with tradespeople. i. The landlord would not keep the tenant updated if tradespeople were latte. j. The landlord would store materials or personal items on the premises. k. When undertaking some work, the landlord would use the tenants’ property in doing that work. l. The landlord would bring ‘mulch’ into the gardens which the tenants were not satisfied with given the type it was. m. The landlord is inefficient with work, such as using a small paint brush to stain the deck pushing out the time to complete the task. n. The landlord would intrude on the tenant’s privacy. o. The landlord is discourteous towards them.

These issues were raised with the Tribunal on 9 th January 2023 when the Tribunal simply reiterated the various legal responsibilities each party had in relation to the tenancy.

For this hearing, the tenant specifically sought: a. $600.00 calculated at $25.00 per day for the landlord parking and blocking the tenant in or using the driveway without consideration and the tenant being unable to remove the tenant’s car; b. $220.00 calculated at $20.00 per day for storing the landlord’s wood in a way that blocked the tenant’s garage and office sliding door; c. $330.00 calculated at $10.00 per day for the tenant being unable to open the windows or doors due to the landlord’s work creating dust and noise; d. Exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises; e. Refund of overpaid rent of $535.71; f. Compensation of $20.00 for the landlord using tenant’s water for work undertaken for the premises; g. Compensation of $60.00 for the additional electricity used as a result of the January 2023 Auckland flooding; and h. Compensation of $3,450.00 for moving out.

I deal with the claims in turn. Breach of quiet enjoyment and compensation

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

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 section 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 section 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.

The tenant said that the landlord had been on the premises 51 days in the last 8 months of the tenancy.

For dense weed removal, the landlord had been there for 10 days over 6 weeks in May and June 2022 and 7 days over August to October.

For fence repair work, the landlord was there for 8 days in November 2022 when the landlord and a neighbour worked on the fence together.

For the driveway fence and retaining wall work, the landlord was there for 10 days in December 2022 and 11 days over the first 3 weeks of January 2023.

The landlord said that there was constant communication and that the landlord did not work on Wednesdays to cater for the tenant’s schedule. The landlord had contracted some workers at some point but some of the work she did it herself or together with her son.

Having been a long-term tenant of the premises, it seems that the mess during the garden work bothered the tenant but I find that the mere presence of the landlord bothered the tenant the most.

The tenant had been frustrated at the pace of the work and that more work began when previous work had not been finished.

Having heard from both parties, while I understand that the tenant would have felt frustrated even to the point of feeling harassed, I find that the landlord had only been doing the necessary maintenance work required.

I do not find that it was an intentional harassment by the landlord and I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages.

In relation to the specific claims, I do not find that the claim regarding the tenant’s car being blocked in by the landlord has been proven.

Although the landlord had parked her car in the driveway when she was working, the tenant never asked the landlord to move the car so that the tenant could get out at any point. There is no evidence that the tenant even tried to get out.

Although it may have been the case that the tenant was already too frustrated and the relationship already too strained, the tenant still had to request for the landlord to move her car away before being able to claim any compensation. This is in accordance with the laws regarding the mitigation of loss.

Accordingly, I do not grant any amount for the landlord’s car blocking the tenant in.

Regarding the landlord’s wood blocking the tenant’s garage and office sliding door, having seen the photos I find that the landlord did unnecessarily block the tenant’s garage and office sliding door.

Although the landlord said that the wood had been placed there to gain shelter from the weather, it caused the loss of use of the space designated for the tenant. The landlord could have resorted to other measures such as covering the wood with some sort of covering if need be. The tenant’s outdoor chair had to be moved to make room for the wood and it was unreasonably close to the tenant’s premises.

I order the landlord to pay the tenant $220.00 for the loss of use of the space.

In relation to the tenant not being able to open windows or doors due to the landlord’s work creating dust and noise, I do not find that the tenant has proven that it was to such an extent that the windows and doors could not be opened.

I find that it was due more to the strained relationship between the parties that the tenant did not want to open the windows or the doors when the landlord was present at the premises.

I dismiss this claim.

The tenant also raised an issue with the landlord offering to have potential tenants view the premises before the tenancy was finished. There was an issue regarding the “available from” date on the online listing.

Having heard from both parties, I find that the landlord had been trying to accommodate the tenant’s request for an earlier termination by getting new tenants in earlier.

I find that there was nothing wrong by the landlord in doing so. Overpaid rent

The tenant had paid rent until 3 rd March 2023.

The landlord did not oppose the refund of the overpaid rent of $535.71.

Accordingly, I order the landlord to refund the tenant $535.71. Landlord’s use of water and electricity

The tenant sought $20.00 for the landlord’s use of water for work undertaken for the premises.

This was not opposed by the landlord.

Accordingly, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $20.00 for water usage.

The tenant also claimed $60.00 for additional electricity used to dry the premises after the Auckland flooding. The tenant said that there was a warning from the power provider that the tenant had used 30% more electricity.

I calculate $20.00 would be the more appropriate compensation for any additional electricity used for drying the premises after the flooding.

I order the landlord to pay the tenant $20.00 for the extra electricity used due to the flooding. Compensation for moving costs

The tenant had sought $3,450.00 for the costs involved in moving out of the premises.

At the hearing, it was explained to the tenant that there was no real basis for this claim as the tenant had given notice to terminate the tenancy.

After hearing this explanation, the tenant withdrew this claim. Accordingly, I make no orders in relation to the moving out costs. Refund of the bond

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but had not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) RTA provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.

Although the landlord raised a number of issues regarding the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

Should the landlord wish to pursue the damage or cleaning claims against the tenant, the landlord must file a separate application with the Tribunal. Filing fee reimbursement

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4486461 — net $816.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of overpaid rent	$535.71	Refund of overpaid rent
Compensation: Use of water	$20.00	Use of water
Compensation: Additional electricity	$20.00	Additional electricity
Compensation: Wood storage	$220.00	Wood storage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$816.15
Bond	$2,070.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$816.15