What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544892 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4544892?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544892?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9405138-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544892 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4544892?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544892?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9405138-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

65 Te Hou Hou Crescent, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4544892 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords’ names and identifying details.
The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Each of the parties have brought an application against the other.
The tenant’s application concerns his claim that he has been harassed by the landlords.
The landlords seek a series of work orders requiring the tenant to repair the damage that the tenant’s dog “F” has caused to both the inside and outside of the premises. The tenant’s claim
Section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. Contravention of s38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act.
The tenant stated that the landlords had harassed him by: • inspecting the premises two days after he had broken his leg and then advising him of various ‘issues’ in relation to that inspection; and • Threatening to terminate his tenancy because he had not repaired the damage to the premises as per a 14 day notice issued to him dated 4 May 2023 and in an email dated 30 July 2023.
I am dismissing the tenant’s claim because neither of these two actions support his contention that he was being harassed. The tenant had allowed the inspection and the landlords were legally entitled to point out any issues in relation to that inspection. Further, there is no evidence that when the tenant had not repaired the damage to the premises as required by the 14 day notice, there was a threat to terminate his tenancy. The landlords’ claim
It was acknowledged by both parties at today’s hearing that the tenant was responsible for repairing any damage done by F or any other dog or person he had allowed onto the property. The landlords sought work orders for the tenant to undertake these repairs.
I am dismissing the claim for work orders because the general understanding is that tenants are to return the premises to the landlord in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. There is no obligation to undertake repairs during the tenancy.
I also explained s40(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section provides that a tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises.
At today’s hearing the tenant understood the obligation to repair or pay the cost of repairing damages caused by F. Allowing F to continue damaging the premises is seen as intentional damage for which the tenant is liable as provided by s40(2) – his obligation is to stop the damage from continuing.
Although the tenant states that F has largely outgrown his destructive behaviour he acknowledges that F cannot resist chewing the irrigation system which makes it inoperable. There was an understanding at today’s hearing that the tenant will have the irrigation system operational when his tenancy ends and that in the meantime he will undertake to replicate the function of the irrigation system by hosing the area that the irrigation system covers. Filing fee reimbursement
If a party is wholly or substantially successful in their claim, then the Tribunal orders the other party to reimburse them the filing fee. Neither party were successful in their claims and so each party must bear their own cost of filing in the Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the 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. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
On my own initiative and after discussion with both parties today, I am ordering both parties’ names to be suppressed. This is because at today’s hearing I saw both parties trying to resolve the issues between them, and although both claims failed the issues between them were genuine. I do not consider that there is any public interest in having their names published. C ter Haar 12 September 2023

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords’ names and identifying details.
The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Each of the parties have brought an application against the other.
The tenant’s application concerns his claim that he has been harassed by the landlords.
The landlords seek a series of work orders requiring the tenant to repair the damage that the tenant’s dog “F” has caused to both the inside and outside of the premises. The tenant’s claim
Section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. Contravention of s38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act.
The tenant stated that the landlords had harassed him by: • inspecting the premises two days after he had broken his leg and then advising him of various ‘issues’ in relation to that inspection; and • Threatening to terminate his tenancy because he had not repaired the damage to the premises as per a 14 day notice issued to him dated 4 May 2023 and in an email dated 30 July 2023.
I am dismissing the tenant’s claim because neither of these two actions support his contention that he was being harassed. The tenant had allowed the inspection and the landlords were legally entitled to point out any issues in relation to that inspection. Further, there is no evidence that when the tenant had not repaired the damage to the premises as required by the 14 day notice, there was a threat to terminate his tenancy. The landlords’ claim
It was acknowledged by both parties at today’s hearing that the tenant was responsible for repairing any damage done by F or any other dog or person he had allowed onto the property. The landlords sought work orders for the tenant to undertake these repairs.
I am dismissing the claim for work orders because the general understanding is that tenants are to return the premises to the landlord in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. There is no obligation to undertake repairs during the tenancy.
I also explained s40(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section provides that a tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises.
At today’s hearing the tenant understood the obligation to repair or pay the cost of repairing damages caused by F. Allowing F to continue damaging the premises is seen as intentional damage for which the tenant is liable as provided by s40(2) – his obligation is to stop the damage from continuing.
Although the tenant states that F has largely outgrown his destructive behaviour he acknowledges that F cannot resist chewing the irrigation system which makes it inoperable. There was an understanding at today’s hearing that the tenant will have the irrigation system operational when his tenancy ends and that in the meantime he will undertake to replicate the function of the irrigation system by hosing the area that the irrigation system covers. Filing fee reimbursement
If a party is wholly or substantially successful in their claim, then the Tribunal orders the other party to reimburse them the filing fee. Neither party were successful in their claims and so each party must bear their own cost of filing in the Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the 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. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
On my own initiative and after discussion with both parties today, I am ordering both parties’ names to be suppressed. This is because at today’s hearing I saw both parties trying to resolve the issues between them, and although both claims failed the issues between them were genuine. I do not consider that there is any public interest in having their names published. C ter Haar 12 September 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544892 — 14-day notice at 65 Te Hou Hou Crescent, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544892 — 14-day notice at 65 Te Hou Hou Crescent, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions