How much money was awarded in case 4552732?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,076.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4552732?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4552732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9257957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4552732?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,076.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4552732?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4552732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9257957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

196 Hokianga Road, Dargaville 0310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4552732 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4552732 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 4552732 — net $1,637.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 July 2023 (not including any rent payments made by the tenant after 19 July 2023	$3,076.15	8. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $3,076.15 if no payments are made between 19 and 24 July.
Amount owed from previous order application 4472967 dated 01/02/2023 (filing fee	$20.44	Amount owed from previous order application 4472967 dated 01/02/2023 (filing fee
Repairs: Damage to garage	$500.00	Repairs: Damage to garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,637.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,637.03

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 196 Hokianga Road, Dargaville 0310 is terminated, and possession is granted to North Island Community Services Ltd at 2.30pm on Monday 24 th July 2023.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to North Island Community Services Ltd immediately

[The tenant/s] must pay North Island Community Services Ltd (as agent for Martin Tutty & Alison Lindsay) $1,637.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 9 June 2023 sets out the background to the two applications.

[Tenant 1] provided further written submissions about the breach of quiet enjoyment issues.

The second hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 19 July 2023.

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Skinner represented the landlord.

[Tenant 1] advised that she had found a new tenancy. [Tenant 1] and Ms Skinner agreed that this tenancy would end on 24 July 2023. Ms Skinner intended to do a final hand-over inspection at around 2.30pm on that day.

I have made a termination order by consent. Rent arrears

[Tenant 1] confirmed that she had checked the landlord’s rent record (to the date of the first hearing) and that the landlord’s record of her payments was accurate.

The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $3,076.15 if no payments are made between 19 and 24 July. [Tenant 1] was due to make a payment of $520.00 on 19 / 20 July, which would reduce this figure accordingly. Garage damage

Ms Skinner confirmed that the landlord’s insurer had accepted the claim for damage to the garage wall, and that a $500.00 excess would apply.

The damage is of a type that [Tenant 1] is legally liable for under the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. [Tenant 1]’s liability is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess.

The claim is proven. Balance owed from previous order

On 1 February 2023, the Tribunal made an order that [Tenant 1] was to pay Propertyscouts Whangarei $521.01 immediately, comprised of rent arrears of $500.47 and the filing fee of $20.44 1 . 1 North Island Community Services Ltd v [The tenant/s] [2023] NZTT 4472967

[Tenant 1] and WINZ made three payments to Propertyscouts on 1 February, totalling $527.00.

Ms Skinner was unsure what the payments were towards, and, after speaking with Tenancy Services, she applied all of the payments to rent.

[Tenant 1] then clarified that the payments were made in settlement of the Tenancy Tribunal order.

Ms Skinner’s email to [Tenant 1] on 3 February about this issue forms part of [Tenant 1]’s claim of breach of quiet enjoyment, as discussed in more detail below.

I accept that [Tenant 1]’s payments on 1 February were intended to cover the amount ordered by the Tribunal, which included the filing fee. I accept the reasons why Ms Skinner applied all of [Tenant 1]’s payments to rent arrears.

The effect of Ms Skinner applying all of the payments to rent arrears is that Propertyscouts’ claim for rent arrears is $20.44 less than it would have been otherwise.

The other effect is that the filing fee remains outstanding. Tenant application Rent increase / market rent

For the reasons given the previous order, my findings are that: a. The rent increase was lawful and effective. b. It is not proven that the rent payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. Breach of quiet enjoyment

[Tenant 1]’s additional written submission discusses seven incidents / issues under this heading. I addressed one of them, Propertyscouts’ request for a bond top up before it fell due, in the previous order.

In brief, the incidents are: a. In September 2022 [Tenant 1] contacted Propertyscouts to explain that she was having financial difficulties due to her father’s funeral costs. The conversation was with Liam – Ms Skinner was away at the time. Soon after this she received a 14-day breach notice for rent arrears. She contacted Propertyscouts immediately and spoke to Ms Skinner. Ms Skinner did not accept that she had spoken to Liam about her financial difficulties. b. As discussed above, on 1 February [Tenant 1] made payments totalling $527.00, which she intended to be satisfaction of the Tenancy Tribunal order for $521.01. On 3 February, Ms Skinner sent her an email stating: We refer to the letter that you received from the Tenancy Tribunal on the 1 st February 2023 ordering you to pay the amount of $521.01 to Propertyscouts. You have failed to pay this amount and you have left us no other choice than to take this further. c. There was an inspection in June, after the first hearing, even though there had already been an inspection in May. There have been 8 inspections during the 12 month tenancy. d. She did not receive a revised tenancy agreement with “new dates and new rent amount”.

I acknowledge that [Tenant 1] genuinely felt harassed by Ms Skinner, and that each of these incidents caused her distress.

However, in determining whether the landlord breached a legal duty under the Residential Tenancies Act, the Tribunal is required to take an objective approach.

The question is not whether [Tenant 1] felt harassed - I accept that she did. The question is whether there are any proven actions or communications by the landlord that were so inappropriate that they amount to an unreasonable interference with [Tenant 1]’s peace, comfort, and privacy.

The most common way that landlords can “go wrong” and interfere with their tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy is by engaging in behaviour that is not genuinely related to landlord business.

All of the specific incidents raised by [Tenant 1] relate to communications or actions by Ms Skinner relating to “normal” landlord matters.

[Tenant 1]’s argument is that Ms Skinner’s communications and actions were unprofessional, and that in combination they show an intention to ‘pick on’ her and to pressure her out of the tenancy.

In the previous order, I commented that Propertyscouts’ email chasing up on a bond top up that the tenant was not yet legally obliged to pay was inappropriate.

Propertyscouts’ email on 3 February about payment of the Tribunal order (quoted above) is similar, but significantly less inappropriate in that: i. The payment from [Tenant 1] did not match the amount ordered. ii. Ms Skinner made reasonable attempts to contact [Tenant 1] to clarify what the payment was for. iii. Ms Skinner sought advice, and was correctly advised that any unallocated payments should be applied first to rent arrears, then to current rent.

All of the other incidents relate to things that landlords are legally entitled to do. Landlords are entitled to issue 14-day breach notices for rent arrears. Landlords are entitled to carry out routine inspections, no more frequently than every four weeks. Propertyscouts had no legal duty to issue a new tenancy agreement – there was a valid notice of rent increase.

From an objective perspective, there is only one proven instance of an interference with [Tenant 1]’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy – the email dated 13 April about the bond top up. As stated in the previous order, that incident in isolation is minor, and it does not amount to harassment of the tenant.

Therefore, without in any way denying the genuine stress and anxiety that [Tenant 1] felt about these issues, I must find that there are no grounds for making an award of compensation or exemplary damages for harassment. Outcome, filing fee, name suppression

The landlord has been successful in its application, and is entitled to recover the filing fee.

The bond will be released to the landlord.

[Tenant 1] requested name suppression.

Section 95A(4) RTA states that the Tribunal may grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”.

In this instance I am satisfied that publication of [Tenant 1]’s name would be unjustly detrimental to her interests. [Tenant 1] ultimately did not dispute the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, and her own application raised issues of genuine concern for her. I am satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to grant name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4552732 — net $1,637.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 July 2023 (not including any rent payments made by the tenant after 19 July 2023	$3,076.15	8. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $3,076.15 if no payments are made between 19 and 24 July.
Amount owed from previous order application 4472967 dated 01/02/2023 (filing fee	$20.44	Amount owed from previous order application 4472967 dated 01/02/2023 (filing fee
Repairs: Damage to garage	$500.00	Repairs: Damage to garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,637.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,637.03