What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613390 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 4613390?

Collection And Storage Of Water: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain -…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide ade…: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of amenity – stov…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Mould: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $10.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $840.00 awarded to tenant; Front Door Glass Pane: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Bedroom Door: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Light Switch: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Oven Glass Door: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613390?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10009780-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613390 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 4613390?

Collection And Storage Of Water: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain -…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide ade…: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of amenity – stov…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Mould: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $10.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $840.00 awarded to tenant; Front Door Glass Pane: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Bedroom Door: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Light Switch: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Oven Glass Door: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613390?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10009780-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6550 State Highway One, Kaitaia 0410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4613390 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4613390 — net $650.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Mould	$1,200.00		Mould
Compensation: Failure to provide adequate means for the	$750.00		Failure to provide adequate means for the
collection and storage of water	$350.00		collection and storage of water
Filing fee	$20.44		80. I will award the filing fee to both parties 5 .
Rent arrears		$840.00	65. On the evidence available to me I will award compensation of $500.00.
Compensation: Loss of amenity – stove		$150.00	Loss of amenity – stove
Compensation: Failure to maintain - septic system		$500.00	Failure to maintain - septic system
Repairs: Front door glass pane		$250.00	Repairs: Front door glass pane
Repairs: Replace oven glass door		$350.00	Repairs: Replace oven glass door
Repairs: Replace light switch		$100.00	Repairs: Replace light switch
Repairs: Replace bedroom door		$350.00	Repairs: Replace bedroom door
Replace lightbulb		$10.00	Replace lightbulb
Rubbish removal		$400.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee		$20.44	80. I will award the filing fee to both parties 5 .
Total award	$2,320.44	$2,970.44
Net award		$650.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$650.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The two previous orders set out the background to the applications.
The third hearing took place in Kaitaia on 5 February 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Tenant’s application Mould and healthy homes compliance
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. There were issues with mould during the whole of the tenancy. b. There is an extraction fan in the shower room, but it did not seem to function well, and this was the worst room for mould. The floor in this room was also water damaged – this is noted on the tenancy agreement - and it got worse during the tenancy. c. There was also mould on the ceilings in the living room and bedrooms. d. There was no extractor fan in the kitchen. e. The wood burner did not work properly during the tenancy, and they were concerned that it was unsafe. f. They found it difficult to communicate with Ms White during the tenancy. Much of the communication was through [The tenant/s] mother, who was previously a tenant at this property and has since moved into another of Ms White’s properties.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs showing extensive mould on the ceilings in the bedrooms, and heavy condensation on the inside of a window.
[The tenant/s] provided a brief video of the woodburner in use – the woodburner is smoking heavily from the top in the video recording.
At the hearing I asked Ms White when the last chimney sweep and safety check of the woodburner occurred. Ms White seemed to be puzzled by the question.
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards 1 .
The heating standard requires that landlords must provide a fixed means of heating of sufficient capacity to heat the main living area in the house. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The ventilation standard requires that landlords must have mechanical extraction in the bathroom and kitchen, vented to the outside. There are exemptions that can apply, but the onus is on the landlord to show that they are entitled to rely on an exemption.
My findings are: a. [The tenant/s] evidence establishes the presence of a significant amount of mould in the house during the tenancy. The fact that the mould is occurring in ‘patches’ on the ceilings in the house, particular in the corners of rooms, suggests that it is not being caused by general dampness in the air, which can be due to a tenant failing to ventilate. Rather, it is indicative of a property problem. b. Landlords have a positive duty to meet the healthy homes standards. Although there is no written evidence of [The tenant/s] letting Ms White know about the problem with the woodburner, proper maintenance of the woodburner includes annual chimney sweeps and safety checks. This is a requirement of the local Council, and it also (almost certainly) a requirement of Ms White’s insurer. The woodburner should not be smoking from the top in the way shown in the tenant’s video. [The tenant/s] had reasonable safety concerns about using the woodburner. Given that this was the only means of heating in the house, it seriously compromised [The tenant/s] ability to keep the house warm and dry and to combat the mould. c. The property did not meet the healthy homes standard for ventilation (no extraction in the kitchen).
Failing to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
In this instance the absence of an extraction fan in the kitchen and the defective wood burner were factors that contributed to the problem of a damp, mouldy property.
I will make an award of damages, essentially compensation for loss of amenity, but also taking into account the healthy homes non-compliance.
I will award $1,200.00. Water
The property is not on mains supply.
There is a water tank, which receives water from the roof of the property. There is a ‘back up’ supply from a nearby creek. Water from the creek is also used as irrigation water for the landlord’s horticultural business.
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. The gutters on the house leaked and overflowed. b. Because the rainwater collection and storage system were inadequate, they often had need of the back-up supply. c. The landlord frequently turned off the back-up supply, including for a period of two weeks near the end of the tenancy.
Ms White submitted that the creek water is not intended to be drinking water and that it should be used for watering the garden or washing cars. However, I understand that the back-up supply goes directly into the household water tank.
Landlords have a duty to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water 2 .
This means that the landlord must provide a water storage system that: a. is functional; and b. can collect and store a sufficient amount of water for the number of people living in the house; and c. can ensure that the water is potable.
In this instance: a. There was a family of five living in the property during this tenancy. b. They frequently ran out of water. c. There is no filtration on any of the water.
[The tenant/s] provided copies of multiple messages from her to Ms White about having no water, and about the water being discoloured.
My finding is that the landlord did not meet her obligation to provide adequate means for the collection and supply of portable water.
Given that the backup water came directly from a creek and there is no UV filtration in place, there is a real risk that the water was contaminated and not potable. However, the water was not tested and there is not sufficient evidence for me to make a positive finding about contamination.
Adequate potable water is a fundamental amenity for a residential property. Ms White’s casual approach to the tenant’s concerns about lack of water is unacceptable.
I will award compensation of $750.00. Stove 2 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA
[The tenant/s] submitted that an element did not work, and the oven also did not work for a period of time.
Ms White acknowledged the issue with the element. She disputed that there was any problem with the oven.
The stove was replaced in October / November 2022.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the problems with the stove were present from the beginning of the tenancy in April.
There is limited written evidence of the tenant notifying the landlord about problems with the stove. In late October 2022 [The tenant/s] sent Ms White a message stating “Sorry Kim when will the stove be getting put in we have no stove or oven”.
The information about timing is somewhat unclear – it is not clear when the tenant first informed the landlord about problems with the stove, or whether ‘oven’ problem was present for the same length of time as the ‘element’ problem.
There is sufficient evidence to show that [The tenant/s] did not have means of cooking for some period of time, and it is appropriate to award compensation on. However, the award must be conservative due to the limited evidence.
I will award $150.00. Termination of the tenancy
The tenancy was terminated by the landlord giving two weeks’ notice, on the grounds of assault 3 .
Having heard from both parties I am satisfied that there were grounds for termination. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenanted premises is adjacent to the landlord’s horticultural business.
[The tenant/s] submitted that Ms White breached her quiet enjoyment by: a. Allowing her dogs to come onto the tenanted property; and b. Burning green waste and plastic in large bonfires near the tenanted property. 3 Section 55AA RTA
There was a long running dispute between the parties relating to dogs, including an allegation that Ms White’s dog mated with [The tenant/s] dog and then Ms White sold the puppies.
That particular issue is outside the scope of the Tenancy Tribunal, but it is one issue within a general category of Ms White’s dog ranging onto the tenanted premises and causing inconvenience for the tenant.
This is a rural property, and it is not fully fenced. I accept that Ms White’s dog did come onto the tenanted property during the tenancy and that this was an annoyance for the tenant. However, the tenant’s dog probably also wandered onto the landlord’s property.
In the circumstances I do not agree that these incidents amounted to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs and video showing Ms White’s ‘bonfires’.
[The tenant/s] notified the local council about the fires. The council sent an inspector, who spoke to Ms White
As noted above, the tenanted premises is next to the landlord’s horticultural operation. A tenant’s “reasonable” expectations of peace, comfort and privacy in such a property must take into account the normal activities of the business, which reasonably includes burning green waste.
[The tenant/s] did not object strongly to this. Her objection was to Ms White burning black polythene in the fires. [The tenant/s] evidence clearly shows that Ms White did burn plastic waste, up to the point that the Council intervened.
There is no reason why [The tenant/s] should be required to tolerate smoke from burning plastic. This amounts to an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
I will award compensation of $150.00. Failure to notify tenant that premises are on the market for sale
[The tenant/s] submitted that a real estate agent came to the premises during the tenancy. [The tenant/s] had not been notified that an agent was coming. The timing was not convenient, and she denied access to the agent.
She then contacted Ms White who informed her via text message that the premises were on the market.
At the hearing Ms White submitted that the premises were not on the market, and that she told a lie in the text message because she wanted the tenants to leave.
Landlords have duty to notify the tenant if they “put the premises on the market for sale or other disposition” 4 . Failure to notify the tenant is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 can apply.
I must accept Ms White’s statement that she did not put the premises on the market and that her message to the tenant was a lie. There is no other evidence to show that Ms White did put the premises on the market.
The landlord has therefore not breached section 47 RTA, but her lie to the tenant, motivated by wanting to pressure the tenant into leaving the tenancy, does amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy. The purpose of the message was essentially to harass [The tenant/s].
Harassment of a tenant is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00. I accept that this incident took place within the context of a dramatically deteriorating relationship between the landlord and tenant, which ultimately culminated in an assault. Both parties were at fault for that deterioration, and it would be unjust to treat Ms White’s message in isolation without taking into account that broader picture. I acknowledge that Ms White was stressed and frustrated.
For that reason, I will award exemplary damages at the low end of the scale.
I will award $200.00. Septic system
[The tenant/s] submitted that they had ongoing problems with the septic system. It would frequently ‘back up’. [The tenant/s] provided video evidence in support of this.
Near the end of 2022 the landlord arranged for the septic tank to be emptied.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the tradesman who emptied the tank told her that the septic pump had malfunctioned. At the hearing Ms White submitted that the pump was repaired, but she had no evidence about this.
Ms White also had no evidence about when the septic tank was last emptied. Ms White stated that she had the tank emptied every year, but she did not provide any invoices or receipts about previous jobs.
Again, the evidence available to me is limited, but sufficient to show that: a. There was a problem with the septic system. b. The landlord did not address the problem for a long time. 4 Section 47(1) RTA c. The problem was caused (either partially or entirely) by the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises.
The problem with the septic system caused inconvenience and stress for the tenant.
It is appropriate to make an award of compensation.
On the evidence available to me I will award compensation of $500.00. Landlord application Rent arrears
The tenant accepted the claim for two weeks of rent arrears.
The landlord’s claim includes the amount of the bond, which the tenant did not pay. The bond is not money that the landlord is entitled to keep at the end of the tenancy. It is the tenant’s money, which is held on trust by the Bond Centre. The landlord is entitled to receive some or all of the bond if the landlord is owed money for cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs, or other costs at the end of the tenancy.
In this instance, the amount that the landlord owes to the tenant exceeds the amount that the tenant owes to the landlord. Even if a bond had been paid, it would be refunded in full to the tenant. Repairs - not proven
Landlords have the burden of proof to establish that damage occurred during the period of the tenancy.
This is usually done by way of photographs or inspection reports from the beginning and the end of the tenancy.
In this instance there was a quick handover at the beginning of the tenancy. The previous tenant was [The tenant/s] mother. Because of that family connection, the process was very informal.
The disadvantage of this now falls to the landlord. There is no evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The following damage was claimed by the landlord but was disputed by the tenant on the grounds that the damage was present when her tenancy began. The landlord has not proven that the damage occurred during [The tenant/s] tenancy: a. Damaged / missing tiles by fireplace. b. Missing towel rail in bathroom. c. Missing / damaged curtains and curtain rails. d. Damage to shower wall edge. e. Coded front door lock not working. f. Garage door lock broken. g. Cracked window in master bedroom.
Other damage / repair claims by the landlord that are not proven are: a. Replace water pump. Ms White submitted that the tenant ‘attacked’ the pump with something like a hammer. Ms White then provided photographs of a very old but undamaged pump. The claim is not proven. b. Damage to master bedroom door. No evidence was provided of the alleged damage. c. Painting. Ms White submitted that the interior walls were so badly marked that it was necessary to re-paint the interior. The claim is not supported by Ms White’s own video evidence. d. Replace lightbulb in every room. No evidence was provided. The exit videos do not show light fittings with missing bulbs. The claim is not proven, except for one missing bulb which [The tenant/s] accepted. e. Electrical work. Ms White did not provide any evidence of tenant damage to electrical fittings, apart from damage to one light switch which [The tenant/s] accepted. Repairs - proven or accepted
[The tenant/s] accepted the claims for: a. Re-glazing a panel in the front door. b. Replacing the glass in the oven top door. c. Replacing a light switch. d. Replacing one lightbulb.
The landlord’s claim includes material cost of that repair work, but the labour claim is an undifferentiated amount. I assess the reasonable cost of repairs as follows: a. Re-glaze front door $250.00. b. Replace glass in oven top door $350.00. c. Replace light switch $100.00.
The claim seeks the cost of replacing a missing bedroom door. [The tenant/s] submitted that all of the doors were present and intact when they left the property. However, Ms White’s vacated photographs show an empty door frame. The claim is proven. I will award $350.00 for replacement of the door.
Part of the labour claim includes cleaning and rubbish removal. Both parties provided photographs and video showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. On that evidence I agree that it was necessary for the landlord to carry out some cleaning and rubbish removal to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
I will award $400.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal. Filing fee, name suppression
I will award the filing fee to both parties 5 .
Both parties sought name suppression.
The Tenancy Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party who has “substantially succeeded” in proceedings 6 .
The tenant has substantially succeeded in this instance. Name suppression is granted to the tenant on that basis.
The landlord has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 7 .
In this instance there are no particular considerations with regards to the interests of the parties that would justify exercising the discretion to grant name suppression.
Therefore, the landlord’s request for name suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4613390 — net $650.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Mould	$1,200.00		Mould
Compensation: Failure to provide adequate means for the	$750.00		Failure to provide adequate means for the
collection and storage of water	$350.00		collection and storage of water
Filing fee	$20.44		80. I will award the filing fee to both parties 5 .
Rent arrears		$840.00	65. On the evidence available to me I will award compensation of $500.00.
Compensation: Loss of amenity – stove		$150.00	Loss of amenity – stove
Compensation: Failure to maintain - septic system		$500.00	Failure to maintain - septic system
Repairs: Front door glass pane		$250.00	Repairs: Front door glass pane
Repairs: Replace oven glass door		$350.00	Repairs: Replace oven glass door
Repairs: Replace light switch		$100.00	Repairs: Replace light switch
Repairs: Replace bedroom door		$350.00	Repairs: Replace bedroom door
Replace lightbulb		$10.00	Replace lightbulb
Rubbish removal		$400.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee		$20.44	80. I will award the filing fee to both parties 5 .
Total award	$2,320.44	$2,970.44
Net award		$650.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$650.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The two previous orders set out the background to the applications.
The third hearing took place in Kaitaia on 5 February 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Tenant’s application Mould and healthy homes compliance
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. There were issues with mould during the whole of the tenancy. b. There is an extraction fan in the shower room, but it did not seem to function well, and this was the worst room for mould. The floor in this room was also water damaged – this is noted on the tenancy agreement - and it got worse during the tenancy. c. There was also mould on the ceilings in the living room and bedrooms. d. There was no extractor fan in the kitchen. e. The wood burner did not work properly during the tenancy, and they were concerned that it was unsafe. f. They found it difficult to communicate with Ms White during the tenancy. Much of the communication was through [The tenant/s] mother, who was previously a tenant at this property and has since moved into another of Ms White’s properties.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs showing extensive mould on the ceilings in the bedrooms, and heavy condensation on the inside of a window.
[The tenant/s] provided a brief video of the woodburner in use – the woodburner is smoking heavily from the top in the video recording.
At the hearing I asked Ms White when the last chimney sweep and safety check of the woodburner occurred. Ms White seemed to be puzzled by the question.
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards 1 .
The heating standard requires that landlords must provide a fixed means of heating of sufficient capacity to heat the main living area in the house. 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The ventilation standard requires that landlords must have mechanical extraction in the bathroom and kitchen, vented to the outside. There are exemptions that can apply, but the onus is on the landlord to show that they are entitled to rely on an exemption.
My findings are: a. [The tenant/s] evidence establishes the presence of a significant amount of mould in the house during the tenancy. The fact that the mould is occurring in ‘patches’ on the ceilings in the house, particular in the corners of rooms, suggests that it is not being caused by general dampness in the air, which can be due to a tenant failing to ventilate. Rather, it is indicative of a property problem. b. Landlords have a positive duty to meet the healthy homes standards. Although there is no written evidence of [The tenant/s] letting Ms White know about the problem with the woodburner, proper maintenance of the woodburner includes annual chimney sweeps and safety checks. This is a requirement of the local Council, and it also (almost certainly) a requirement of Ms White’s insurer. The woodburner should not be smoking from the top in the way shown in the tenant’s video. [The tenant/s] had reasonable safety concerns about using the woodburner. Given that this was the only means of heating in the house, it seriously compromised [The tenant/s] ability to keep the house warm and dry and to combat the mould. c. The property did not meet the healthy homes standard for ventilation (no extraction in the kitchen).
Failing to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
In this instance the absence of an extraction fan in the kitchen and the defective wood burner were factors that contributed to the problem of a damp, mouldy property.
I will make an award of damages, essentially compensation for loss of amenity, but also taking into account the healthy homes non-compliance.
I will award $1,200.00. Water
The property is not on mains supply.
There is a water tank, which receives water from the roof of the property. There is a ‘back up’ supply from a nearby creek. Water from the creek is also used as irrigation water for the landlord’s horticultural business.
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. The gutters on the house leaked and overflowed. b. Because the rainwater collection and storage system were inadequate, they often had need of the back-up supply. c. The landlord frequently turned off the back-up supply, including for a period of two weeks near the end of the tenancy.
Ms White submitted that the creek water is not intended to be drinking water and that it should be used for watering the garden or washing cars. However, I understand that the back-up supply goes directly into the household water tank.
Landlords have a duty to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water 2 .
This means that the landlord must provide a water storage system that: a. is functional; and b. can collect and store a sufficient amount of water for the number of people living in the house; and c. can ensure that the water is potable.
In this instance: a. There was a family of five living in the property during this tenancy. b. They frequently ran out of water. c. There is no filtration on any of the water.
[The tenant/s] provided copies of multiple messages from her to Ms White about having no water, and about the water being discoloured.
My finding is that the landlord did not meet her obligation to provide adequate means for the collection and supply of portable water.
Given that the backup water came directly from a creek and there is no UV filtration in place, there is a real risk that the water was contaminated and not potable. However, the water was not tested and there is not sufficient evidence for me to make a positive finding about contamination.
Adequate potable water is a fundamental amenity for a residential property. Ms White’s casual approach to the tenant’s concerns about lack of water is unacceptable.
I will award compensation of $750.00. Stove 2 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA
[The tenant/s] submitted that an element did not work, and the oven also did not work for a period of time.
Ms White acknowledged the issue with the element. She disputed that there was any problem with the oven.
The stove was replaced in October / November 2022.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the problems with the stove were present from the beginning of the tenancy in April.
There is limited written evidence of the tenant notifying the landlord about problems with the stove. In late October 2022 [The tenant/s] sent Ms White a message stating “Sorry Kim when will the stove be getting put in we have no stove or oven”.
The information about timing is somewhat unclear – it is not clear when the tenant first informed the landlord about problems with the stove, or whether ‘oven’ problem was present for the same length of time as the ‘element’ problem.
There is sufficient evidence to show that [The tenant/s] did not have means of cooking for some period of time, and it is appropriate to award compensation on. However, the award must be conservative due to the limited evidence.
I will award $150.00. Termination of the tenancy
The tenancy was terminated by the landlord giving two weeks’ notice, on the grounds of assault 3 .
Having heard from both parties I am satisfied that there were grounds for termination. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenanted premises is adjacent to the landlord’s horticultural business.
[The tenant/s] submitted that Ms White breached her quiet enjoyment by: a. Allowing her dogs to come onto the tenanted property; and b. Burning green waste and plastic in large bonfires near the tenanted property. 3 Section 55AA RTA
There was a long running dispute between the parties relating to dogs, including an allegation that Ms White’s dog mated with [The tenant/s] dog and then Ms White sold the puppies.
That particular issue is outside the scope of the Tenancy Tribunal, but it is one issue within a general category of Ms White’s dog ranging onto the tenanted premises and causing inconvenience for the tenant.
This is a rural property, and it is not fully fenced. I accept that Ms White’s dog did come onto the tenanted property during the tenancy and that this was an annoyance for the tenant. However, the tenant’s dog probably also wandered onto the landlord’s property.
In the circumstances I do not agree that these incidents amounted to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs and video showing Ms White’s ‘bonfires’.
[The tenant/s] notified the local council about the fires. The council sent an inspector, who spoke to Ms White
As noted above, the tenanted premises is next to the landlord’s horticultural operation. A tenant’s “reasonable” expectations of peace, comfort and privacy in such a property must take into account the normal activities of the business, which reasonably includes burning green waste.
[The tenant/s] did not object strongly to this. Her objection was to Ms White burning black polythene in the fires. [The tenant/s] evidence clearly shows that Ms White did burn plastic waste, up to the point that the Council intervened.
There is no reason why [The tenant/s] should be required to tolerate smoke from burning plastic. This amounts to an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
I will award compensation of $150.00. Failure to notify tenant that premises are on the market for sale
[The tenant/s] submitted that a real estate agent came to the premises during the tenancy. [The tenant/s] had not been notified that an agent was coming. The timing was not convenient, and she denied access to the agent.
She then contacted Ms White who informed her via text message that the premises were on the market.
At the hearing Ms White submitted that the premises were not on the market, and that she told a lie in the text message because she wanted the tenants to leave.
Landlords have duty to notify the tenant if they “put the premises on the market for sale or other disposition” 4 . Failure to notify the tenant is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 can apply.
I must accept Ms White’s statement that she did not put the premises on the market and that her message to the tenant was a lie. There is no other evidence to show that Ms White did put the premises on the market.
The landlord has therefore not breached section 47 RTA, but her lie to the tenant, motivated by wanting to pressure the tenant into leaving the tenancy, does amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy. The purpose of the message was essentially to harass [The tenant/s].
Harassment of a tenant is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00. I accept that this incident took place within the context of a dramatically deteriorating relationship between the landlord and tenant, which ultimately culminated in an assault. Both parties were at fault for that deterioration, and it would be unjust to treat Ms White’s message in isolation without taking into account that broader picture. I acknowledge that Ms White was stressed and frustrated.
For that reason, I will award exemplary damages at the low end of the scale.
I will award $200.00. Septic system
[The tenant/s] submitted that they had ongoing problems with the septic system. It would frequently ‘back up’. [The tenant/s] provided video evidence in support of this.
Near the end of 2022 the landlord arranged for the septic tank to be emptied.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the tradesman who emptied the tank told her that the septic pump had malfunctioned. At the hearing Ms White submitted that the pump was repaired, but she had no evidence about this.
Ms White also had no evidence about when the septic tank was last emptied. Ms White stated that she had the tank emptied every year, but she did not provide any invoices or receipts about previous jobs.
Again, the evidence available to me is limited, but sufficient to show that: a. There was a problem with the septic system. b. The landlord did not address the problem for a long time. 4 Section 47(1) RTA c. The problem was caused (either partially or entirely) by the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises.
The problem with the septic system caused inconvenience and stress for the tenant.
It is appropriate to make an award of compensation.
On the evidence available to me I will award compensation of $500.00. Landlord application Rent arrears
The tenant accepted the claim for two weeks of rent arrears.
The landlord’s claim includes the amount of the bond, which the tenant did not pay. The bond is not money that the landlord is entitled to keep at the end of the tenancy. It is the tenant’s money, which is held on trust by the Bond Centre. The landlord is entitled to receive some or all of the bond if the landlord is owed money for cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs, or other costs at the end of the tenancy.
In this instance, the amount that the landlord owes to the tenant exceeds the amount that the tenant owes to the landlord. Even if a bond had been paid, it would be refunded in full to the tenant. Repairs - not proven
Landlords have the burden of proof to establish that damage occurred during the period of the tenancy.
This is usually done by way of photographs or inspection reports from the beginning and the end of the tenancy.
In this instance there was a quick handover at the beginning of the tenancy. The previous tenant was [The tenant/s] mother. Because of that family connection, the process was very informal.
The disadvantage of this now falls to the landlord. There is no evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The following damage was claimed by the landlord but was disputed by the tenant on the grounds that the damage was present when her tenancy began. The landlord has not proven that the damage occurred during [The tenant/s] tenancy: a. Damaged / missing tiles by fireplace. b. Missing towel rail in bathroom. c. Missing / damaged curtains and curtain rails. d. Damage to shower wall edge. e. Coded front door lock not working. f. Garage door lock broken. g. Cracked window in master bedroom.
Other damage / repair claims by the landlord that are not proven are: a. Replace water pump. Ms White submitted that the tenant ‘attacked’ the pump with something like a hammer. Ms White then provided photographs of a very old but undamaged pump. The claim is not proven. b. Damage to master bedroom door. No evidence was provided of the alleged damage. c. Painting. Ms White submitted that the interior walls were so badly marked that it was necessary to re-paint the interior. The claim is not supported by Ms White’s own video evidence. d. Replace lightbulb in every room. No evidence was provided. The exit videos do not show light fittings with missing bulbs. The claim is not proven, except for one missing bulb which [The tenant/s] accepted. e. Electrical work. Ms White did not provide any evidence of tenant damage to electrical fittings, apart from damage to one light switch which [The tenant/s] accepted. Repairs - proven or accepted
[The tenant/s] accepted the claims for: a. Re-glazing a panel in the front door. b. Replacing the glass in the oven top door. c. Replacing a light switch. d. Replacing one lightbulb.
The landlord’s claim includes material cost of that repair work, but the labour claim is an undifferentiated amount. I assess the reasonable cost of repairs as follows: a. Re-glaze front door $250.00. b. Replace glass in oven top door $350.00. c. Replace light switch $100.00.
The claim seeks the cost of replacing a missing bedroom door. [The tenant/s] submitted that all of the doors were present and intact when they left the property. However, Ms White’s vacated photographs show an empty door frame. The claim is proven. I will award $350.00 for replacement of the door.
Part of the labour claim includes cleaning and rubbish removal. Both parties provided photographs and video showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. On that evidence I agree that it was necessary for the landlord to carry out some cleaning and rubbish removal to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
I will award $400.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal. Filing fee, name suppression
I will award the filing fee to both parties 5 .
Both parties sought name suppression.
The Tenancy Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party who has “substantially succeeded” in proceedings 6 .
The tenant has substantially succeeded in this instance. Name suppression is granted to the tenant on that basis.
The landlord has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 7 .
In this instance there are no particular considerations with regards to the interests of the parties that would justify exercising the discretion to grant name suppression.
Therefore, the landlord’s request for name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613390 — Property damage at 6550 State Highway One, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613390 — Property damage at 6550 State Highway One, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions