What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4652189 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 4652189?

Compensation: Condition Of Premises: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652189?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9652802-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4652189 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 4652189?

Compensation: Condition Of Premises: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652189?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9652802-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4652189 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652189 — net $5,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Smoke alarms	$500.00	Smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$1,000.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: Condition of premises	$600.00	Condition of premises
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment	$3,000.00	Quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,120.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,120.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The hearing follows an earlier hearing and directions order made by the Tribunal on 11 September. That order specified the tenant’s claims. Background

This tenancy began on 8 July 2023 and ended on 8 September following a termination notice served by the tenant on 11 August.

The tenant described how the tenancy was a very unhappy one for her. She has made a variety of claims of which the most serious for her is that the landlord and her partner interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The landlord said that the tenancy was unhappy for her as well and it has put her off being a landlord in the future. She described the tenant as being demanding and suggested that she had caused a breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship. She said it was that breakdown that caused her to serve the tenant with a termination notice on 9 August.

My impression of the parties from reading the communications between them and from the hearings is that they are both robust women who are willing and able to stand up for themselves. The difference is that it is the landlord who can affect the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises not the other way around.

The tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises is far from the only issue in this case, but it is the main one.

The landlord accepts that she has made mistakes. She says that she was a first-time landlord, and she was not familiar with the legal requirements. I accept that and it assists her to some extent, but by no means fully.

There were conflicts of evidence between the parties on some points. To resolve these, I have had regard to the supporting evidence such as photographs and the communications between the parties. Where I have had to choose between the parties’ evidence, I have preferred the tenant’s evidence. Her evidence was often well supported by the other evidence whereas I found the landlord’s evidence to be inherently unlikely in some respects and it was also contradictory at times.

I will now deal with the tenant’s claims The Condition of the Premises

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.

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.

I accept the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. There are photographs showing that and the tenant complained about it. There was a hole in the glass window of the wood burner. The lights and extractor fan in the bathroom didn’t work. There were no curtains in one of the bedrooms, although the landlord had promised them. There were some gaps and draughts. The oven didn’t work properly.

I accept that the tenant had to clean the premises when she moved in. She suffered inconvenience due to the maintenance issues.

I find that an award of compensation is enough to deal with these breaches and I have awarded $600. There is no need for an award of exemplary damages. Smoke Alarms

There were smoke alarms in the premises when the tenant moved in, but they were not installed (the fittings were there) and they did not have batteries. The landlord said that they did, but the tenant would not have complained if they had working batteries and the landlord would not have agreed to pay for batteries bought by the tenant.

The tenant was without working smoke alarms for four days.

This was a serious breach because having working smoke alarms can be the difference between life and death in the event of a fire. An award of exemplary damages is therefore required. The landlord was plainly aware of the need for the alarms, but she had not ensured that they were working and installed.

In mitigation, the landlord had provided the alarms and there were there for the tenant to see, and she was at least made aware that they were not installed. An award at the low end of the scale is adequate and I award $500. Healthy Homes

The more recent Healthy Homes requirements did not apply to this tenancy. Insulation requirements did. The tenant did not provide any evidence in relation to this. The landlord provided a photograph showing insulation under the floor but no ground vapour barrier. But because the underfloor area is not enclosed, it wasn’t required. Therefore, this claim has not been proved and it is dismissed. Landlord’s Termination Notice

The tenant claims that the landlord’s termination notice was retaliatory.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.

Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00.

The landlord’s termination notice followed immediately after the tenant arranged for a trespass notice to be served on the landlord and her partner. The tenant said she did so because the landlord and her partner would not refrain from coming to the premises without notice and she was felt that she had to protect her wellbeing. I accept that.

The landlord said that the trespass notice made the tenancy untenable because she could not enter the rear area of the property as she was entitled to do. She claimed that the tenant was aware from the beginning that the rear area was not included in the tenancy. As I explain below, I do not accept that. I note also that the landlord shut the tenant off from using the rear area and if she believed that it was not included in the tenancy, it would not be affected by the trespass notice because the tenant was not in occupation of it.

The tenant made it clear in her trespass notice that she did not object to the landlord exercising her rights to come to the premises provided it was lawful. That meant giving notice in most cases. It follows that the tenancy was not untenable because of the trespass notice.

Instead of serving the trespass notice, the tenant could have applied to the Tribunal in relation to the landlord’s actions, but I accept that would have taken time and the tenant was feeling desperate.

I find that the landlord’s notice was retaliatory. Its timing and its content by referring to the trespass notice makes that clear. Other messages from the landlord indicate that she had enough of the tenancy and wanted it to end. It is clear to me that the landlord took umbrage at being asked to attend to issues raised by the tenant. In the main, the tenant’s requests were reasonable.

As well, the ground for the notice, that the landlord intended occupying the premises, was not genuine. The landlord confirmed to me that she did not intend occupying the premises (the house).

There should be an award of exemplary damages for the notice. It was a blatant and serious breach of the tenant’s right of occupation of the premises. An award of $1,000 is appropriate. Quiet Enjoyment

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

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.

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.

The unlawful termination notice was an obvious breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. It triggered the tenant’s own termination notice and resulted in the tenant having to move again with her children and incur the expense of doing so.

There were other incidents of interference with her quiet enjoyment. The landlord and her partner made numerous visits to the premises often without a good reason and sometimes at inappropriate times. They did not enter the house and I accept that s48 of the Act does not make it an unlawful act for the landlord to enter the grounds of a tenancy. But frequent and unwelcome visits can constitute a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and in this case, I find that they did.

I find that the landlord did not make it clear to the tenant that she did not have the use of the open area behind the house. I accept that the tenant expected to have the use of it. During the tenancy the landlord fenced off that area and denied the tenant access to it. That was plainly an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The landlord claimed that there was a document with the tenancy agreement that made it clear that the area was not included in the tenancy. I do not accept that. If that was the landlord’s intention, she could have put it in the agreement. There was no need for a separate document. I also don’t accept that the landlord left both copies of all the documents with the tenant. That makes no sense even allowing for the landlord’s unfamiliarity with the Act.

I also find that the landlord behaved in an overbearing and at times aggressive way towards the tenant. Her communications with the tenant demonstrate that.

The landlord’s actions caused the tenant to leave the premises after a short time when it had been her intention to stay there long term. She incurred moving costs as well as other expenses. Taking things in the round, I find that an award of $3,000 compensation is appropriate. An award of exemplary damages is not warranted. The landlord did not embark of a campaign of harassment. She was poorly informed and made bad decisions. Tenancy Agreement Statements

The Act requires certain information to be provided to the tenant with the tenancy agreement such as Healthy Homes and insulation statements. The landlord did not provide them.

Because the landlord was inexperienced and the absence of the statements did not have any significant effect in this case, an award of exemplary damages is not warranted. Bond

The landlord did not lodge the bond within time. But she did not lodge it and she did freely agree that it should be paid out to the tenant after the tenancy ended. Given the landlord’s inexperience an award of exemplary damages is not warranted. Locks

The tenant complained that the lock on the ranch slider door was inadequate. The landlord disputed that. Whatever the situation was I make no award in relation to it. The tenant could secure the door and it was not a major problem. Filing Fee

The tenant has been substantially successful and so the landlord must pay the filing fee. Suppression

For the same reason I have granted the tenant’s request for name suppression. There is no reason to suppress the landlord’s name.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652189 — net $5,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Smoke alarms	$500.00	Smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$1,000.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: Condition of premises	$600.00	Condition of premises
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment	$3,000.00	Quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,120.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,120.44