What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562298 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 4562298?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562298?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9507286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562298 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 4562298?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562298?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9507286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

52 Union Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4562298 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

52 Union Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4562298 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4562298 — net $1,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of Section 38	$1,000.00	Breach of Section 38
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$200.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$700.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,920.44

Claims and awards for application 4562298 — net $1,920.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Breach of Section 38

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of Section 38

Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to lodge bond

Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,920.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,920.44

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — Termination for rent arrears.

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Hong (Jennifer) Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $230.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The rent to be paid by the tenant is $330.00 per week until the landlord complies with the requirements of the work orders in the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 4 April 2023,or as ordered by the Tenancy Tribunal or other Court.
The rest of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was accompanied by a support worker, [Support person] and was represented by Counsel, [The tenant/s representative]. Ms Zhang and her husband Qian Mu, also known as Charlie, attended with an interpreter present.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord filed a cross application for termination, compensation and exemplary damages.
Both parties applied for name suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This is a current tenancy that began on 21 June 2018. A Tenancy Tribunal order was issued on 4 April 2023,(applications 4515570,4530690), and parts of this order are in the process of appeal.
The tenant trespassed the landlords’ husband Mr Mu, from the premises on 19 April 2023.

Has the landlord carried out the work orders ordered by the Tribunal?

The landlord was ordered to complete work by the Tenancy Tribunal in the order of 4 April 2023 .The tenant has sought a determination of whether the balance of the work orders have been completed. Each order was given a monetary amount that the tenant was to deduct from rent owing if they were not finished within 21 days of the order.
The tenant claimed that the following repairs have not been completed; Roof Repairs a) The landlord said that her husband cleaned and inspected the roof and plumbers. He re-screwed some nails but did not find anything wrong with the roof and nothing to repair. The landlord said that all the contractors who had inspected or worked on the premises came to the same conclusion that nothing was wrong. The landlord was unable to produce one report or paid invoice for work supporting this. b) The tenant provided a photo of a damp/wet area in the roof cavity and Mr Mu on the roof. c) The landlord said that they were turned down for an insurance claim as there were no leaks and they had a builder and plumber confirm that the roof was not leaking. However, the Tribunal Order of 4 April stipulated that an appropriately qualified roofing contractor was to attended the premises and repair it as required. I find that this has not been done and the tenant has established that this order has not been complied with. Gutters and drainpipes d) The landlord was ordered to clean and repair the gutters and drainpipes. The landlords husband cleaned the gutters and drainpipes, but no repairs were done. The landlord said that this was because there were no repairs to do. e) The tenant agreed that the Mr Mu had cleaned the gutters. She provided videos of water of over running gutters , but it was not established that there were any repairs needed. There was no requirement that a professional investigate the property for this purpose. I find that this requirement was complied with by the landlord. Bathroom dampness f) The landlord was ordered to have a qualified builder investigate the source of moisture/dampness in the bathroom and if necessary, make repairs. The landlord said they had organised for an independent inspector to make a report on the premises. When the inspector was there an argument ensued between the tenant and landlord. This was recorded and played at the hearing. Both parties provided a transcript of the incident. The inspection was not completed, and the tenant told the landlord to leave. g) There was no evidence provided that this was a qualified builder investigating the source of moisture/dampness in the bathroom. The tenant suggested some sources for the leaks but had nothing in writing from plumbers or other tradesmen that attended the premises. I find that this work order has not been complied with. Bamboo and tree trim h) The landlord was ordered to remove or cut back the bamboo and trim tree branches overhanging the garage/shed. The tenant produced a photo of the right side of the garage/ shed where not all of the hedge has been trimmed right back. The landlord produced photos of the bamboo around the property and the left side of the shed having been trimmed. A bill from ‘Treetops ‘ was provided for bamboo and hedge trimming was provided as proof that the work had been completed and paid for as required by the tribunal order. i) I have considered the tenants photographs and it appears work was done if not all of it to the tenant’s standards. I find that the landlord has produced good evidence that the work has been completed and this claim is dismissed. Was there a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
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.
Section 38 of the RTA defines premises as including facilities and facilities includes lawns and gardens. See section 2 RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlord told her that she could not have visitors at the inspections, failed to give notice for trades people attending the premises, aggravated her dog, sent late night emails, photographed the inside of the house when not inspecting it, emailed 3 antisocial notices, refused to let an insurance inspector give her his details, the landlords husband Mr Mu returned to the premises after he was trespassed, and she used the Police to force entry.
The tenant read an impact statement with a list of her concerns about the tenancy and behaviour of the landlord.
A copy of an email dated 4 July 2023 was provided where the landlord stated, ‘no visitors is to be onsite to obstruct our job.”
The landlord said this was to prevent visitors obstructing work, not that they were not allowed there.
On the 20 April 2023 and inspection was held and the landlord provided evidence that they had given the tenants notice of this. No other instances of failure to give notice were provided by the tenant
There was no evidence provided supporting the claims that the landlord aggravated her dog, sent more than one late night email or photographed the inside of the house.
A landlord has the right to issue notices for anti-social behaviour and the tenant has the right to challenge them. This is not a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
The tenant trespassed Mr Mu on 19 April 2023. After this date Mr Mu tried to re- enter the premises to meet trades people. The tenant gave the dates of; •20 April, Mr Mu tried to enter the property but was told that he couldn’t .This was when the heat pump was being attended to. •22 April, Mr Mu came to the front door and tried to repair the roof ,as well as accompany trades people and meet the heat pump repairer •26 April Mr Mu came to the gate.
Counsel said that he had no need to be on the premise as the terms of the Tribunal order were that the repairs required were not to be done by him.
The landlord has claimed that Mr Mu was the owner, landlord and agent at this premises. He has been named as her power of attorney.
The landlord was aware of the notice and still sought to have Mr Mu attend the premises. She said there were many things that he could repair, and he needed to be there to meet with trades people. She also did not feel safe at the premises.
After Mr Mu was trespassed from the premises, he returned 3 times to the outside but never entered as he was turned away. The landlord agreed with this. I find that by Mr Mu coming to the premises and seeking entry after the issuing of a trespass notice is a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
I find they have committed 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 section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The breach of a trespass notice is serious. The landlord was aware of the order and the clear intention not have Mr Mu at the premises. The landlord spoke of the frustration it caused when trying to look after the premises. This does not allow the landlord to breach the trespass notice and instruct Mr Mu to accompany her and tradespeople. It is important that landlords know and comply with the requirements of the RTA. I find it just to award $1000.00 being one third of the maximum that can be awarded for a breach of this section.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant made a payment to the landlord’s business account on 3 September 2021 for $196.00 and this was not lodged with the bond centre until 14 April 2023. This is not disputed.
The landlord said that she did not know that the extra bond top up had been paid to her because the tenant paid this into her business account, which she had asked her not to do. The tenant had also paid rent into this same account for 5 years even though the landlord asked her not to.
The tenant said her rent was paid for by WINZ and she had no ability to change the account that her rent and payments from WINZ went into. Only the landlord could do this, and she had been asked to do this.
A landlord is required to keep proper business records showing any amount by way of bond paid by or on behalf of the tenant. See section 30(1)(b) RTA
The landlord was aware of payments being made into this account but has not instructed WINZ to change this. The bank statement provided clearly shows this amount of $196.00 was paid in by [The tenant/s].
I find that because the landlord has failed to keep good records and keep track of deposits, they have not fulfilled their obligation with respect to the bond payment. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s inaction caused the part bond not to be deposited for some time. This is not the landlord’s money to kept, but must be held by the bond centre for end of tenancy claims. It is in the public interest that landlords keep good records and comply with the requirements of the RTA.
I find it just to award $200.00 for failure to lodge part bond.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The District Court has confirmed that when there are multiple claims for a breach under a single section (section 45 here), then only one order of exemplary damages can be made. I will therefore address the claims for exemplary damages for breaches of section 45 below.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
The tenant claimed that; a) The lounge was flooded on 2 separate occasions resulting in her not being able to use that area. The tenant provided a statement from a family member saying that there was water on the floor. There was no further evidence provided or confirmation that the tenant informed the landlord of this. The landlord said they did not know about any floods. b) Electrical and other repairs were undertaken by the landlords’ husband, and he is not certified to do this. Mr Mu was only ever a trainee electrician, and this qualification has expired. The landlord agreed that Mr Mu installed the heat pump but denied that he did any other electrical works.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that there is not enough evidence provided establishing that the lounge was flooded. This claim is dismissed.
Mr Mu agreed he had fixed the washing machine by cleaning the filter, had installed the heat pump, and fixed the hot water thermostat twice. He said that he did this while being supervised by a friend who was qualified. There is no record of this supervision, or invoice for time or travel for these repairs.
I find that the landlord organised for an unqualified person to complete electrical work at the premises and that they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it just to make an award for failing to maintain the premises. The completion of electrical work by an unqualified person is dangerous and can put the lives of tenants at risk. The landlord is required to comply with not only the requirements of the RTA but any relevant enactment in relation to buildings and health and safety. I award $700.00 for this breach. Landlords Claims

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is obstructing, acting aggressively and having too many visitors at the premises while conducting inspections and repairs. There were claims of being verbally attacked and feeling uncomfortable. The trespassing and continual refusal to allow Mr Mu access and refusal to terminate the trespass notice against him was claimed as anti-social behaviour.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti- social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
A tenant has the right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice. See sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) of the RTA.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The first notice issued on 24 April 2023 was challenged by the tenant saying that due to the relationship with the landlord she had 2 support workers with her when an inspection occurred, and one left half way through. There were not a lot of visitors as claimed. The landlord said that they sat on the couch making it hard to inspect but moved when asked. The landlord felt obstructed as she was followed and asked questions while she inspected the premises.
The second notice on 27 April 2023 related to work at the premises by a few trades people and the landlord said that she had safety concerns for the tenant, children and visitors there. She said the tenants partner spoke to her in an angry voice in a language that she could not understand which made her uncomfortable. The dog was also acting aggressively, but was tied up at the time.
The last notice issue on 6 May 2023,claimed that a refusal to end a trespass notice is anti-social behaviour
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I am not satisfied that 3 valid notices were given. I have considered each notice with respect to the definition of anti-social actions that reasonably cause alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
There was evidence provided by both parties of arguments between them resulting in the landlord being told to leave and Police involvement. No charges were laid. The relationship between the parties is strained and has deteriorated but I do not find that there was any evidence of assault.
I do not agree with the landlord’s submission that failing to reverse the trespass notice is antisocial because as it interfered with the work that they needed to do, wasted their time, and prevented them from attending to repairs.
The landlord may feel that this is a major nuisance, but it is a person’s right to trespass someone from their premises and is not an anti-social act. The tenant confirmed that with correct notice the landlord was allowed of the premises.
I have determined that the landlord has not established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord withdrew the claim for damages to the downpipe.
The compensation the landlord was seeking was for financial damage, because as a result of the tenant trespassing Mr Mu from the premises, the landlord had to employ tradesmen to attend to all the work and maintenance, some of which Mr Mu could have completed himself.
The second financial damage claimed was for the GST the landlord had to pay for rent that was paid into the business account, not the account that the landlord said they requested . No specific amount was claimed.
Section 49B RTA covers where a tenant is liable for damages. This section relates to claims where the landlord alleges that the tenant had caused destruction or damages to the premises.
I do not find that the damages claimed are to the premises. This section does not apply and this claim is dismissed. Termination for rent arrears.
The landlord claimed that the tenant was in rent arrears at the date of the application. The tenant believed that they were in credit. This belief stems from the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 4 May 2023,where work orders were made with corresponding monetary values to be deducted from rent if not completed within 21 days of the order.
The order also specified that if the work was not completed the monetary deductions from rent could be back dated to the date of the order, being the 4 April 2023.
The tenant paid rent at $510.00 per week to the 26 April being the end of the work order completion period.
The tenant the assessed what work had not been completed, attributed the money value to it and back dated the value to the 4 April order date. The tenant then added up the full rental that she paid during the work order period, subtracted the monetary values and believed that she was in credit.
On this basis the tenant stopped paying rent for 6 weeks until 30 June when an order from the Tenancy Tribunal, as part of a pre case conference hearing, ordered that the tenant pay $340.00 rent per week .This calculated from 25 April, being $2724.29.This was paid less two week of $265.00 as the tenant had resumed paying rent from the date of the hearing to the date of the decision.
The landlord believed that the tenant should have paid the rent in full until the matter was determined by the Tenancy Tribunal and because they believed that they had complied with the terms of the order. On this basis they calculated the rent to be $4355.76.This amount was amended as the original claim included water rates.
As discussed in the tenants claims above the Tribunal has found that the landlord has still not complied fully with the terms of the original order with respect to the roof and leaks and the bathroom dampness. The cumulative total of deduction ordered in the Tribunal decision of 4 April 2023 is $180.00 leaving a rent weekly rent of $330.00 to be paid. Based on $330.00 per week the tenant would not have been in rent arrears at the time the application was filed or at the date of the hearing, so the tenancy cannot be terminated on the basis of rent arrears.
The claim before the Tribunal was for termination for rent arrears. I find that the landlord did not establish that the tenant was in arrears and this claim is dismissed.

Was the trespass notice valid?

The landlord maintained throughout the hearing that the trespass notice was not valid because the tenant could not trespass a landlord. She maintained that Mr Mu was a landlord and property owner and it was his legal right to conduct inspections and attend to maintenance.
This claim was based on Mr Mu being the landlords husband, attending to the premises and maintaining it for 5 years and being her nominated agent when she travelled as well as his role in repairing and maintain the premises.
Ms Hong said that if they separated, he would be entitled to half the property as relationship property so this confirmed him as an owner, as well as her power of attorney naming him to take over her affairs when she was not able to attend to them.
Mr Mu is not on the Certificate of Title and was not named as a landlord on the tenancy agreement.
Counsel stated that the landlord had claimed Mr Mu was owner, landlord and agent, but he could not be classed as a legal owner based on a beneficial interest not realised. The power of attorney was not annexed to the tenancy agreement and a trespass notice can be issued against an owner and only overridden in emergency situations. Ultimately Ms Hong was not disadvantaged as she was not trespassed from the premises and was able to inspect and attend to maintenance.
A legal occupier can issue a trespass notice and a trespass notice can be issued against a landlord. A trespass notice acts a warning to prevent unlawful entry. The tenant said that one of the reasons she trespassed Mr Mu was to stop him coming to the premises and performing dangerous repairs that he was not qualified to do.
Whether Mr Mu was acting as an owner, agent or landlord of the premises I find that the trespass was correctly issued by the tenant who was the legal occupier and is valid. There were no emergency circumstances justifying a breach of it.
I find that there is a valid trespass notice issued against the landlord’s husband, Mr Mu. 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.
Both parties requested suppression. I find that the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings and therefore is entitled to suppression by right.
The landlord was unsuccessful and having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest, I do not consider it justified to order suppression. I decline to make a suppression order in favour of the landlord.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4562298 — net $1,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of Section 38	$1,000.00	Breach of Section 38
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$200.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$700.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,920.44

Claims and awards for application 4562298 — net $1,920.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Breach of Section 38

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of Section 38

Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to lodge bond

Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,920.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,920.44

Dismissed claims

Rent Arrears — Termination for rent arrears.

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Hong (Jennifer) Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $230.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The rent to be paid by the tenant is $330.00 per week until the landlord complies with the requirements of the work orders in the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 4 April 2023,or as ordered by the Tenancy Tribunal or other Court.
The rest of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was accompanied by a support worker, [Support person] and was represented by Counsel, [The tenant/s representative]. Ms Zhang and her husband Qian Mu, also known as Charlie, attended with an interpreter present.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord filed a cross application for termination, compensation and exemplary damages.
Both parties applied for name suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This is a current tenancy that began on 21 June 2018. A Tenancy Tribunal order was issued on 4 April 2023,(applications 4515570,4530690), and parts of this order are in the process of appeal.
The tenant trespassed the landlords’ husband Mr Mu, from the premises on 19 April 2023.

Has the landlord carried out the work orders ordered by the Tribunal?

The landlord was ordered to complete work by the Tenancy Tribunal in the order of 4 April 2023 .The tenant has sought a determination of whether the balance of the work orders have been completed. Each order was given a monetary amount that the tenant was to deduct from rent owing if they were not finished within 21 days of the order.
The tenant claimed that the following repairs have not been completed; Roof Repairs a) The landlord said that her husband cleaned and inspected the roof and plumbers. He re-screwed some nails but did not find anything wrong with the roof and nothing to repair. The landlord said that all the contractors who had inspected or worked on the premises came to the same conclusion that nothing was wrong. The landlord was unable to produce one report or paid invoice for work supporting this. b) The tenant provided a photo of a damp/wet area in the roof cavity and Mr Mu on the roof. c) The landlord said that they were turned down for an insurance claim as there were no leaks and they had a builder and plumber confirm that the roof was not leaking. However, the Tribunal Order of 4 April stipulated that an appropriately qualified roofing contractor was to attended the premises and repair it as required. I find that this has not been done and the tenant has established that this order has not been complied with. Gutters and drainpipes d) The landlord was ordered to clean and repair the gutters and drainpipes. The landlords husband cleaned the gutters and drainpipes, but no repairs were done. The landlord said that this was because there were no repairs to do. e) The tenant agreed that the Mr Mu had cleaned the gutters. She provided videos of water of over running gutters , but it was not established that there were any repairs needed. There was no requirement that a professional investigate the property for this purpose. I find that this requirement was complied with by the landlord. Bathroom dampness f) The landlord was ordered to have a qualified builder investigate the source of moisture/dampness in the bathroom and if necessary, make repairs. The landlord said they had organised for an independent inspector to make a report on the premises. When the inspector was there an argument ensued between the tenant and landlord. This was recorded and played at the hearing. Both parties provided a transcript of the incident. The inspection was not completed, and the tenant told the landlord to leave. g) There was no evidence provided that this was a qualified builder investigating the source of moisture/dampness in the bathroom. The tenant suggested some sources for the leaks but had nothing in writing from plumbers or other tradesmen that attended the premises. I find that this work order has not been complied with. Bamboo and tree trim h) The landlord was ordered to remove or cut back the bamboo and trim tree branches overhanging the garage/shed. The tenant produced a photo of the right side of the garage/ shed where not all of the hedge has been trimmed right back. The landlord produced photos of the bamboo around the property and the left side of the shed having been trimmed. A bill from ‘Treetops ‘ was provided for bamboo and hedge trimming was provided as proof that the work had been completed and paid for as required by the tribunal order. i) I have considered the tenants photographs and it appears work was done if not all of it to the tenant’s standards. I find that the landlord has produced good evidence that the work has been completed and this claim is dismissed. Was there a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
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.
Section 38 of the RTA defines premises as including facilities and facilities includes lawns and gardens. See section 2 RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlord told her that she could not have visitors at the inspections, failed to give notice for trades people attending the premises, aggravated her dog, sent late night emails, photographed the inside of the house when not inspecting it, emailed 3 antisocial notices, refused to let an insurance inspector give her his details, the landlords husband Mr Mu returned to the premises after he was trespassed, and she used the Police to force entry.
The tenant read an impact statement with a list of her concerns about the tenancy and behaviour of the landlord.
A copy of an email dated 4 July 2023 was provided where the landlord stated, ‘no visitors is to be onsite to obstruct our job.”
The landlord said this was to prevent visitors obstructing work, not that they were not allowed there.
On the 20 April 2023 and inspection was held and the landlord provided evidence that they had given the tenants notice of this. No other instances of failure to give notice were provided by the tenant
There was no evidence provided supporting the claims that the landlord aggravated her dog, sent more than one late night email or photographed the inside of the house.
A landlord has the right to issue notices for anti-social behaviour and the tenant has the right to challenge them. This is not a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
The tenant trespassed Mr Mu on 19 April 2023. After this date Mr Mu tried to re- enter the premises to meet trades people. The tenant gave the dates of; •20 April, Mr Mu tried to enter the property but was told that he couldn’t .This was when the heat pump was being attended to. •22 April, Mr Mu came to the front door and tried to repair the roof ,as well as accompany trades people and meet the heat pump repairer •26 April Mr Mu came to the gate.
Counsel said that he had no need to be on the premise as the terms of the Tribunal order were that the repairs required were not to be done by him.
The landlord has claimed that Mr Mu was the owner, landlord and agent at this premises. He has been named as her power of attorney.
The landlord was aware of the notice and still sought to have Mr Mu attend the premises. She said there were many things that he could repair, and he needed to be there to meet with trades people. She also did not feel safe at the premises.
After Mr Mu was trespassed from the premises, he returned 3 times to the outside but never entered as he was turned away. The landlord agreed with this. I find that by Mr Mu coming to the premises and seeking entry after the issuing of a trespass notice is a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
I find they have committed 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 section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The breach of a trespass notice is serious. The landlord was aware of the order and the clear intention not have Mr Mu at the premises. The landlord spoke of the frustration it caused when trying to look after the premises. This does not allow the landlord to breach the trespass notice and instruct Mr Mu to accompany her and tradespeople. It is important that landlords know and comply with the requirements of the RTA. I find it just to award $1000.00 being one third of the maximum that can be awarded for a breach of this section.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant made a payment to the landlord’s business account on 3 September 2021 for $196.00 and this was not lodged with the bond centre until 14 April 2023. This is not disputed.
The landlord said that she did not know that the extra bond top up had been paid to her because the tenant paid this into her business account, which she had asked her not to do. The tenant had also paid rent into this same account for 5 years even though the landlord asked her not to.
The tenant said her rent was paid for by WINZ and she had no ability to change the account that her rent and payments from WINZ went into. Only the landlord could do this, and she had been asked to do this.
A landlord is required to keep proper business records showing any amount by way of bond paid by or on behalf of the tenant. See section 30(1)(b) RTA
The landlord was aware of payments being made into this account but has not instructed WINZ to change this. The bank statement provided clearly shows this amount of $196.00 was paid in by [The tenant/s].
I find that because the landlord has failed to keep good records and keep track of deposits, they have not fulfilled their obligation with respect to the bond payment. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s inaction caused the part bond not to be deposited for some time. This is not the landlord’s money to kept, but must be held by the bond centre for end of tenancy claims. It is in the public interest that landlords keep good records and comply with the requirements of the RTA.
I find it just to award $200.00 for failure to lodge part bond.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The District Court has confirmed that when there are multiple claims for a breach under a single section (section 45 here), then only one order of exemplary damages can be made. I will therefore address the claims for exemplary damages for breaches of section 45 below.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
The tenant claimed that; a) The lounge was flooded on 2 separate occasions resulting in her not being able to use that area. The tenant provided a statement from a family member saying that there was water on the floor. There was no further evidence provided or confirmation that the tenant informed the landlord of this. The landlord said they did not know about any floods. b) Electrical and other repairs were undertaken by the landlords’ husband, and he is not certified to do this. Mr Mu was only ever a trainee electrician, and this qualification has expired. The landlord agreed that Mr Mu installed the heat pump but denied that he did any other electrical works.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that there is not enough evidence provided establishing that the lounge was flooded. This claim is dismissed.
Mr Mu agreed he had fixed the washing machine by cleaning the filter, had installed the heat pump, and fixed the hot water thermostat twice. He said that he did this while being supervised by a friend who was qualified. There is no record of this supervision, or invoice for time or travel for these repairs.
I find that the landlord organised for an unqualified person to complete electrical work at the premises and that they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it just to make an award for failing to maintain the premises. The completion of electrical work by an unqualified person is dangerous and can put the lives of tenants at risk. The landlord is required to comply with not only the requirements of the RTA but any relevant enactment in relation to buildings and health and safety. I award $700.00 for this breach. Landlords Claims

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is obstructing, acting aggressively and having too many visitors at the premises while conducting inspections and repairs. There were claims of being verbally attacked and feeling uncomfortable. The trespassing and continual refusal to allow Mr Mu access and refusal to terminate the trespass notice against him was claimed as anti-social behaviour.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti- social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
A tenant has the right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice. See sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) of the RTA.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The first notice issued on 24 April 2023 was challenged by the tenant saying that due to the relationship with the landlord she had 2 support workers with her when an inspection occurred, and one left half way through. There were not a lot of visitors as claimed. The landlord said that they sat on the couch making it hard to inspect but moved when asked. The landlord felt obstructed as she was followed and asked questions while she inspected the premises.
The second notice on 27 April 2023 related to work at the premises by a few trades people and the landlord said that she had safety concerns for the tenant, children and visitors there. She said the tenants partner spoke to her in an angry voice in a language that she could not understand which made her uncomfortable. The dog was also acting aggressively, but was tied up at the time.
The last notice issue on 6 May 2023,claimed that a refusal to end a trespass notice is anti-social behaviour
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I am not satisfied that 3 valid notices were given. I have considered each notice with respect to the definition of anti-social actions that reasonably cause alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
There was evidence provided by both parties of arguments between them resulting in the landlord being told to leave and Police involvement. No charges were laid. The relationship between the parties is strained and has deteriorated but I do not find that there was any evidence of assault.
I do not agree with the landlord’s submission that failing to reverse the trespass notice is antisocial because as it interfered with the work that they needed to do, wasted their time, and prevented them from attending to repairs.
The landlord may feel that this is a major nuisance, but it is a person’s right to trespass someone from their premises and is not an anti-social act. The tenant confirmed that with correct notice the landlord was allowed of the premises.
I have determined that the landlord has not established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord withdrew the claim for damages to the downpipe.
The compensation the landlord was seeking was for financial damage, because as a result of the tenant trespassing Mr Mu from the premises, the landlord had to employ tradesmen to attend to all the work and maintenance, some of which Mr Mu could have completed himself.
The second financial damage claimed was for the GST the landlord had to pay for rent that was paid into the business account, not the account that the landlord said they requested . No specific amount was claimed.
Section 49B RTA covers where a tenant is liable for damages. This section relates to claims where the landlord alleges that the tenant had caused destruction or damages to the premises.
I do not find that the damages claimed are to the premises. This section does not apply and this claim is dismissed. Termination for rent arrears.
The landlord claimed that the tenant was in rent arrears at the date of the application. The tenant believed that they were in credit. This belief stems from the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 4 May 2023,where work orders were made with corresponding monetary values to be deducted from rent if not completed within 21 days of the order.
The order also specified that if the work was not completed the monetary deductions from rent could be back dated to the date of the order, being the 4 April 2023.
The tenant paid rent at $510.00 per week to the 26 April being the end of the work order completion period.
The tenant the assessed what work had not been completed, attributed the money value to it and back dated the value to the 4 April order date. The tenant then added up the full rental that she paid during the work order period, subtracted the monetary values and believed that she was in credit.
On this basis the tenant stopped paying rent for 6 weeks until 30 June when an order from the Tenancy Tribunal, as part of a pre case conference hearing, ordered that the tenant pay $340.00 rent per week .This calculated from 25 April, being $2724.29.This was paid less two week of $265.00 as the tenant had resumed paying rent from the date of the hearing to the date of the decision.
The landlord believed that the tenant should have paid the rent in full until the matter was determined by the Tenancy Tribunal and because they believed that they had complied with the terms of the order. On this basis they calculated the rent to be $4355.76.This amount was amended as the original claim included water rates.
As discussed in the tenants claims above the Tribunal has found that the landlord has still not complied fully with the terms of the original order with respect to the roof and leaks and the bathroom dampness. The cumulative total of deduction ordered in the Tribunal decision of 4 April 2023 is $180.00 leaving a rent weekly rent of $330.00 to be paid. Based on $330.00 per week the tenant would not have been in rent arrears at the time the application was filed or at the date of the hearing, so the tenancy cannot be terminated on the basis of rent arrears.
The claim before the Tribunal was for termination for rent arrears. I find that the landlord did not establish that the tenant was in arrears and this claim is dismissed.

Was the trespass notice valid?

The landlord maintained throughout the hearing that the trespass notice was not valid because the tenant could not trespass a landlord. She maintained that Mr Mu was a landlord and property owner and it was his legal right to conduct inspections and attend to maintenance.
This claim was based on Mr Mu being the landlords husband, attending to the premises and maintaining it for 5 years and being her nominated agent when she travelled as well as his role in repairing and maintain the premises.
Ms Hong said that if they separated, he would be entitled to half the property as relationship property so this confirmed him as an owner, as well as her power of attorney naming him to take over her affairs when she was not able to attend to them.
Mr Mu is not on the Certificate of Title and was not named as a landlord on the tenancy agreement.
Counsel stated that the landlord had claimed Mr Mu was owner, landlord and agent, but he could not be classed as a legal owner based on a beneficial interest not realised. The power of attorney was not annexed to the tenancy agreement and a trespass notice can be issued against an owner and only overridden in emergency situations. Ultimately Ms Hong was not disadvantaged as she was not trespassed from the premises and was able to inspect and attend to maintenance.
A legal occupier can issue a trespass notice and a trespass notice can be issued against a landlord. A trespass notice acts a warning to prevent unlawful entry. The tenant said that one of the reasons she trespassed Mr Mu was to stop him coming to the premises and performing dangerous repairs that he was not qualified to do.
Whether Mr Mu was acting as an owner, agent or landlord of the premises I find that the trespass was correctly issued by the tenant who was the legal occupier and is valid. There were no emergency circumstances justifying a breach of it.
I find that there is a valid trespass notice issued against the landlord’s husband, Mr Mu. 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.
Both parties requested suppression. I find that the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings and therefore is entitled to suppression by right.
The landlord was unsuccessful and having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest, I do not consider it justified to order suppression. I decline to make a suppression order in favour of the landlord.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562298 — Exemplary damages at 52 Union Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562298 — Exemplary damages at 52 Union Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord carried out the work orders ordered by the Tribunal?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the trespass notice valid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord carried out the work orders ordered by the Tribunal?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the trespass notice valid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord carried out the work orders ordered by the Tribunal?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Can the landlord terminate for anti-social behaviour?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the trespass notice valid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord carried out the work orders ordered by the Tribunal?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Can the landlord terminate for anti-social behaviour?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the trespass notice valid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions