What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627362 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4627362?

Arties’ Names And Identifying Detail…: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627362?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9388490-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627362 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4627362?

Arties’ Names And Identifying Detail…: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627362?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9388490-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[suppressed] Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627362 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627362. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
arties’ names and identifying details. 2. The Tribunal orders that the rent to apply to this tenancy from 14 July 2023 i	$690.00		arties’ names and identifying details. 2. The Tribunal orders that the rent to apply to this tenancy from 14 July 2023 i

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627362. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
arties’ names and identifying details. 2. The Tribunal orders that the rent to apply to this tenancy from 14 July 2023 i	$690.00		arties’ names and identifying details. 2. The Tribunal orders that the rent to apply to this tenancy from 14 July 2023 i

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal orders that the rent to apply to this tenancy from 14 July 2023 is $690.00, which the Tribunal assesses as the market rent for these premises.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The agent confirmed the owners were aware of both applications, but they did not want to attend the hearing.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, and compensation.
The tenant applied for a market rent assessment and claimed compensation for breaches of quiet enjoyment.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 17 June 2022 as a one-year fixed term. It formed remotely with the tenant viewing the premises online and entering into the tenancy agreement prior to her move from Christchurch.
The fixed term ended on 15 June 2023 and continues as a periodic tenancy. The tenant was advised by email on 24 February 2023 that at the end of the fixed term the rent would be increasing to $730 per week but that increased amount would include regular lawn and garden maintenance. It appears the increase had been notified to the property manager from the owners after a meeting on 20 February 2023.
The premises is a new build. The owners live in the property next door but they have engaged an agent to manage the tenancy. The relationship between the owners and the tenant appears amicable at the start and functioning at a neighbourly level. Both are families and some of their children have developed friendships that mean visits to each house occur.
For reasons I remain uncertain about, the relationship between the adult neighbours became fractious. The owners appear to have taken a more indirect approach, using the property manager as the direct point of contact with the tenant. This is likely a pragmatic approach.
The tenant claims that she was promised privacy at the premises before agreeing to the tenancy. The reality when she arrived was that this was a new build and while there was some boundary fencing in place, other boundary areas were planted in young trees. The landlord was advised by the tenant of her concerns and some enhancements were proposed and implemented. Nothing further appears to have been raised by the tenant after these changes until her application was lodged.
Due to illness the tenant was unable to maintain the lawns and garden and this caused some consternation for the owners and agents.
The tenant was offered an early release from the fixed term given her dissatisfaction with the configuration of the premises. This was declined as, on balance, it suited her to remain. Landlord application
The landlord has served a number of notices to remedy on the tenant. The main issue appears the ongoing concern regarding the lawns and garden. The tenant was ill during the early stages of the tenancy and she accepted the lawns and gardens got away on her. The concern of the owners is understandable, hence the notices.
The property has a stone walkway of reasonable size. That also suffered from vegetation coming through the walkway. This has been addressed by spraying by the owners but it appears to be accepted that there is an underlying lack of weed matting or similar that would prevent such growth. While the tenancy agreement assigns responsibility for the lawns and garden to the tenant, I do not consider that responsibility extends to maintenance of the stone pathways so any remedy notice to the tenant regarding this is of no effect. The owners might consider remedial action to reduce the problem.
There were rent arrears that was subject to a remedy notice but this was resolved.
The remaining problem for the landlord has damage to the front door that was accepted by the tenant but has not been repaired.
The landlord sought termination per section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The section provides for termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches. It reads: (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Early in the hearing I foreshadowed that I struggled to see any obvious grounds for termination. Some notices failed to allow the minimum of 14 days to remedy, others were remedied within the timeframe stated. Regardless, I struggle to see that the breaches cited were of such a nature that it would have been equitable to end the tenancy.
The owners were keen to take over lawn and garden maintenance, but the tenant insists she is now capable of meeting her responsibilities to maintain these to a reasonable standard. I understand the concerns of the owners given the section is still new, and the lawns and gardens developing and vulnerable. However, given the fractious relationship at this stage, the presence of the owners on the premises to conduct gardening activities would impact the tenant and I support, at this time, her preference to retain her contracted obligation. The landlord may serve appropriate orders, if necessary, in the future.
The repair of the door is accepted by the tenant as her responsibility. There was some confusion regarding cost and possible landlord insurance cover. The tenancy agreement states the insurance excess is $1500.00. It now appears the insurance policy has an excess of $2500. As I explained at the hearing, it is my view that the tenant can rely on the excess amount as recorded in the tenancy agreement, even if a drafting error. If that excess subsequently increased that was not notified to the tenant. The damage was not intentional, and the tenant has recourse to the cover provided by the landlord’s insurance policy. Her liability for the repair is capped at $1500.00 or the actual cost, whichever is lesser.
I have made no formal order regarding the repair of the door as I can envisage a number of strategies that might resolve the problem in a more mutually beneficial way for both parties. The tenant is to repair the damaged front door and handle, or compensate the landlord in the alternative if so mutually agreed. This should be resolved no later than Friday 29 September 2023 or the landlord may bring this claim back to the Tribunal. Tenant application
The tenant claimed her quiet enjoyment was being disturbed by the landlord. She requested perimeter fencing and enhanced privacy, as well as a market rent determination.
The main event that impacted the tenant and her quiet enjoyment occurred on or around 12 January 2023. It appears the owners were on holiday and away from next door but some of their children remained with some other children and adults staying.
There was a disturbing sequence of events instigated by the children next door. These had a distressing impact on the tenant who sought the advice of her agent. The advice was to call the police which the tenant did. The police attended and spoke to the occupants next door and that appears to have resolved the problem.
The tenant drafted and sent a terse email to the property manager shortly before the occupants of next door, under the guidance of the adult, approached and apologised for their behaviour. This was further reinforced by the children volunteering to take on a round of paper deliveries on behalf of the tenant. While the behaviour was unacceptable it appears that a genuine restorative process took place and I see no grounds for any further orders.
Apart from that incident, any other instance cited by the tenant does not appear to be either evidenced of such significance that any compensation order should be made. I have tried to consider the interactions from both a landlord/tenant and neighbour perspective.
The other factor that has been an issue for the tenant since the commencement of her tenancy has been her desire for privacy, both inside and outdoors. Having looked at the photographs provided of the premises and the reality of a new build on a bare section with juvenile planting I do not find it proven or appropriate to make any orders for further enhancements to provide further privacy. I note the earlier offer of the landlord for the tenant to find a more appropriate home given her dissatisfaction with the configuration of this premises. As discussed at the hearing, I believe the tenant has scope to create further privacy to meet her specific needs without involving the landlord.
Therefore, no orders for compensation or work are made.
The tenant also sought a market rent determination following a rent increase to $730.00 per week at the end of the fixed term period.
Neither party provided me with a copy of the rent increase notice. I have proceeded on the basis that the notice complied with the requirements of s 24 RTA, as the tenant did not raise any issue with the form of the notice in her application or at the hearing.
Section 25 RTA provides (in part): (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. (2) ... (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income-related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. (4) An order made under this section shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date, but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order.
The Tribunal may order a reduction of the rent to an amount in line with market rent if the rent for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
‘Market rent’ is the rent that, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy taking into consideration the general level or rents for comparable tenancies or comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. One matter here is the landlord intending to take on the lawn and garden responsibility at the time of the rent increase. This has not occurred.
The Tribunal must not take account the personal circumstances of either party when considering whether to make an order under s 25 RTA. In this case, the tenant provided details of her personal and financial circumstances, but I place no weight on that evidence when considering this aspect of the claim.
The question to be determined, is whether the rent charged for the premises is at a market rate, and if not, whether the Tribunal should substitute its own assessment of what a market rate will be.
The landlord provided evidence in relation to market rent. This was provided as a series of current or recent listings.
At the hearing, the tenant relied on a prior search and comparison of the Tenancy Services data. She was aware of the disclaimer that comes with any result generated from that source but given the new rent was more than even the upper quartile she felt justified in believing the increase was excessive. While not directly referred to, I suspect the earlier message from 24 February 2023 regarding both a rent increase and the owners looking to take on the responsibility for the lawns and gardens might have had some bearing on her thinking as well.
The premises is in Stoke but is close to Enner Glynn. It is part of an area of attractive, quality new builds within a wider area of older, lesser quality homes. It is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom home of quality finish. It has shared access with another property. The external aspect will improve as plantings become more established. It is considered an upper quartile property.
While in Stoke, I consider the premises to be more akin to the closely neighbouring Enner Glynn than Stoke for statistical or comparative purposes.
Below is a table of the current market rent data. This is compared to the original rent of $680.00 and the increased rent of $730.00. Figure 1: Tenancy Services data
The listing examples as provided by the landlord were useful and balanced. It is difficult to find a clear equivalent.
The RTA does not provide any definition of what ‘substantially’ exceeding the market rate means. However, the word is defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as meaning: Of considerable importance, size or worth, strongly build or made, important in material or social terms; wealthy 2 concerning the essentials of something. 3 real and tangible rather than imaginary.
I find that the rent increase of $50.00 per week (putting the rent well above the upper quartile for rents in the more expensive Enner Glynn area) is of considerable importance and is, objectively, real and tangible for the tenant. The initial rent of $680.00 was already at the upper range.
The Tribunal substitutes its own assessment that the market rent for these premises will be $690.00 per week. That rent is to apply from 14 July 2023. The landlord is to reimburse the tenant for any rent increase paid between that effective date and the date of this order. Application filing fee
I make no order regarding the respective application filing fees and each party is to carry their own cost. 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 Period: 01 Jan 2023 - 30 Jun 2023

ACTIVE

BONDS

LOWER

QUARTILE

MEDIAN

RENT

UPPER

QUARTILE

Nelson - Stoke 3 bedrooms537$550$580$600 Nelson - Enner Glynn 01 Jan 2023 - 30 Jun 2023 3 bedrooms66$580$600$650

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.
Not surprisingly for someone who values privacy, the tenant requested name suppression. Her success had been a mixed bag, but it could be argued she has substantially succeeded on the basis of the market rent claim. Given that, and in consideration of her broader interests I have ordered suppression. I see no public interest that might sway me otherwise to refuse suppression. I have also exercised my initiative to suppress the landlord details. This is done to maximise the chance of the tenant and the owners, who remain neighbours, finding a way to improve their relationship as at present both are unhappy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627362 — Rent arrears at [suppressed]

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627362 — Rent arrears at [suppressed]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ACTIVE

BONDS

LOWER

QUARTILE

MEDIAN

RENT

UPPER

QUARTILE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ACTIVE

BONDS

LOWER

QUARTILE

MEDIAN

RENT

UPPER

QUARTILE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions