What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4692892 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4692892?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692892?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9896740-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4692892 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4692892?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692892?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9896740-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4692892 — Leaks

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published. The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person with Tobias Kraus, a support person from Walsh Trust.
[Name suppressed], the property manager, and [name suppressed], the owner, also attended.
The tenant claimed compensation for damage to her fridge, and exemplary damages for unlawful entries, and harassment. Background
The tenancy began on 10 December 2012 and is continuing.
The tenancy seems to have been relatively problem free until the parties fell into dispute in about August of 2023, when the landlord got contractors to repair some flooring. The contractor discovered unrelated damage to the flooring beside the tenant’s fridge.
The landlord thinks the tenant had failed to report the damage and that her fridge had leaked, causing the damage. The landlord wanted the tenant to pay $750.00 (equivalent to the landlord’s insurance excess) towards the cost of repairing the unrelated damage. However, the tenant was not aware of the damage and disputed that her fridge caused it. She got legal advice that the damage was in the nature of fair wear and tear and she was therefore not liable for it.
In response to the tenant refusing to contribute to the cost of the floor repair, the landlord raised the rent (from $460.00 per week to $510.00). However, the rent was previously low. Even at the increased amount, the rent remains below market value.
During the repairs, the property manager and the owner came to the premises on two occasions at the contractor’s request. On one of those occasions, the tenant and the property manager had an intense exchange about the property manage wanting the tenant to contribute to the cost of the unrelated damage.
Also, during the repair works the tenant found the contractors to be rude and disagreeable. They insisted on using two powerful heaters against her wishes. The lead contractor behaved in a spiteful way. The tenant believes the contractors left the fridge unplugged, ruining the food inside and that they damaged the power cord, which made it unrepairable.

Is the landlord liable for damage to the fridge?

The tenant claims the landlord’s contractor damaged the fridge’s power cord.
The tenant did not raise the allegation of damage with the landlord or the contractor straightaway as might be expected. Her photograph of the cord was taken a week after the work was done. The contractor firmly denies the allegation.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the contractor caused the damage to the fridge’s power cord.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

The tenant alleges the property manager and the owner unlawfully entered the premises on two occasions.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. 1
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
The property manager and the owner went to the premises twice at the contractor’s request. However, on both occasions it was with the tenant’s consent.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant alleges the property manager harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 3
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. 4
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". 5
The tenant and the property manager had some testy exchanges. The most intense was when the property manager went around to the premises after the contractor reported the unrelated damage. The tenant says the property manager “bailed me up in my bedroom doorway and threatened me”. She says the property manager said, “You have cost us $4,000” and wrongly accused her of damaging the premises. She says that the property manager sent her an “extortion email” saying that she had to pay the landlord $750.00 for their excess. When she got legal advice and refused to pay, four minutes later, the property manager gave her a rent increase notice.
The property manager denies the claims, and says, she is greatly upset by the allegations of unprofessionalism against her. She feels the allegations have severely damaged the landlord-tenant relationship. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 48(1) and (2). 2 RTA, s 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A. 3 RTA, s 38(2). 4 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 5 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. The parties have fallen into dispute and they are each sensitive to the other’s communications and actions, which they now regard with trepidation.
The tenant and one of the contractors in particular clashed. The contractor has defended their actions and responded with his own counter allegations against the tenant. Even if the contractor was being deliberately difficult, the disagreement between him and the tenant was in the nature of a personality conflict. I do not consider the contractors’ actions warrant a finding of interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace under the RTA.
The landlord put the rent up immediately after the tenant refused to entertain contributing to the unrelated floor damage. The timing of the increase shows it was a reactive “tit-for-tat” response. Nonetheless, the weekly rent remains below the market rate the landlord could probably justifiably command. Even if it betrayed an irritation, I do not find that the rent increase was an interference in terms of s 38. On the other hand, the property manager should consider whether she should have tempered what appears to be a fiery emotional reaction to the tenant expressing her basic tenant rights.
I have read the tenant’s written statement submitted at the hearing today and listened to her other oral submissions.
I do not find any interference with the tenant reasonable peace claims proven and they are dismissed. Non-publication
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. 6
The landlord applies for non-publication of her identifying details. She has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s application for non-publication is granted. That extends to the owner also. 6 RTA, s 95A(1).
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 the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 7
The tenant seeks non-publication. Publication could affect the tenant’s ability to secure tenancies in the future. The tenant was well-intentioned in bringing her claims even though she did not succeed in them. Other parts of her claim were settled in mediation.
The landlord is not opposed to non-publication. I consider suppression is consistent with the public interest in the circumstances of the case.
The tenant’s details must not be published. Addendum
The tenant loves the premises and the neighbourhood. She seems to have been a good tenant to all intents and purposes. There has been a fallout but it need not lasting acrimony.
The interactions the tenant complained about were in the nature of communication around routine tenancy issues that will naturally occur during a tenancy. Sometimes difficult and stressful arise as they did here and the stress leads to unproductive and unintendedly hurtful exchanges. Perhaps the communication could have been handled differently, but it is easy to wise from a distance and after the event.
When relationships become strained, landlords should exercise their landlord rights judiciously. Landlords hold a position of power in relation to the tenants which can be overlooked in the heat of the moment when there is a dispute. It may be useful to take a step back and try and understand the tenant’s perspective before taking drastic measures.
The Tribunal hopes the parties’ relationship can be repaired in the fullness of time and the tenancy can continue happily as it had before recent events.

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published. The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person with Tobias Kraus, a support person from Walsh Trust.
[Name suppressed], the property manager, and [name suppressed], the owner, also attended.
The tenant claimed compensation for damage to her fridge, and exemplary damages for unlawful entries, and harassment. Background
The tenancy began on 10 December 2012 and is continuing.
The tenancy seems to have been relatively problem free until the parties fell into dispute in about August of 2023, when the landlord got contractors to repair some flooring. The contractor discovered unrelated damage to the flooring beside the tenant’s fridge.
The landlord thinks the tenant had failed to report the damage and that her fridge had leaked, causing the damage. The landlord wanted the tenant to pay $750.00 (equivalent to the landlord’s insurance excess) towards the cost of repairing the unrelated damage. However, the tenant was not aware of the damage and disputed that her fridge caused it. She got legal advice that the damage was in the nature of fair wear and tear and she was therefore not liable for it.
In response to the tenant refusing to contribute to the cost of the floor repair, the landlord raised the rent (from $460.00 per week to $510.00). However, the rent was previously low. Even at the increased amount, the rent remains below market value.
During the repairs, the property manager and the owner came to the premises on two occasions at the contractor’s request. On one of those occasions, the tenant and the property manager had an intense exchange about the property manage wanting the tenant to contribute to the cost of the unrelated damage.
Also, during the repair works the tenant found the contractors to be rude and disagreeable. They insisted on using two powerful heaters against her wishes. The lead contractor behaved in a spiteful way. The tenant believes the contractors left the fridge unplugged, ruining the food inside and that they damaged the power cord, which made it unrepairable.

Is the landlord liable for damage to the fridge?

The tenant claims the landlord’s contractor damaged the fridge’s power cord.
The tenant did not raise the allegation of damage with the landlord or the contractor straightaway as might be expected. Her photograph of the cord was taken a week after the work was done. The contractor firmly denies the allegation.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the contractor caused the damage to the fridge’s power cord.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

The tenant alleges the property manager and the owner unlawfully entered the premises on two occasions.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. 1
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
The property manager and the owner went to the premises twice at the contractor’s request. However, on both occasions it was with the tenant’s consent.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant alleges the property manager harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 3
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. 4
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". 5
The tenant and the property manager had some testy exchanges. The most intense was when the property manager went around to the premises after the contractor reported the unrelated damage. The tenant says the property manager “bailed me up in my bedroom doorway and threatened me”. She says the property manager said, “You have cost us $4,000” and wrongly accused her of damaging the premises. She says that the property manager sent her an “extortion email” saying that she had to pay the landlord $750.00 for their excess. When she got legal advice and refused to pay, four minutes later, the property manager gave her a rent increase notice.
The property manager denies the claims, and says, she is greatly upset by the allegations of unprofessionalism against her. She feels the allegations have severely damaged the landlord-tenant relationship. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 48(1) and (2). 2 RTA, s 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A. 3 RTA, s 38(2). 4 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 5 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. The parties have fallen into dispute and they are each sensitive to the other’s communications and actions, which they now regard with trepidation.
The tenant and one of the contractors in particular clashed. The contractor has defended their actions and responded with his own counter allegations against the tenant. Even if the contractor was being deliberately difficult, the disagreement between him and the tenant was in the nature of a personality conflict. I do not consider the contractors’ actions warrant a finding of interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace under the RTA.
The landlord put the rent up immediately after the tenant refused to entertain contributing to the unrelated floor damage. The timing of the increase shows it was a reactive “tit-for-tat” response. Nonetheless, the weekly rent remains below the market rate the landlord could probably justifiably command. Even if it betrayed an irritation, I do not find that the rent increase was an interference in terms of s 38. On the other hand, the property manager should consider whether she should have tempered what appears to be a fiery emotional reaction to the tenant expressing her basic tenant rights.
I have read the tenant’s written statement submitted at the hearing today and listened to her other oral submissions.
I do not find any interference with the tenant reasonable peace claims proven and they are dismissed. Non-publication
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. 6
The landlord applies for non-publication of her identifying details. She has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s application for non-publication is granted. That extends to the owner also. 6 RTA, s 95A(1).
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 the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 7
The tenant seeks non-publication. Publication could affect the tenant’s ability to secure tenancies in the future. The tenant was well-intentioned in bringing her claims even though she did not succeed in them. Other parts of her claim were settled in mediation.
The landlord is not opposed to non-publication. I consider suppression is consistent with the public interest in the circumstances of the case.
The tenant’s details must not be published. Addendum
The tenant loves the premises and the neighbourhood. She seems to have been a good tenant to all intents and purposes. There has been a fallout but it need not lasting acrimony.
The interactions the tenant complained about were in the nature of communication around routine tenancy issues that will naturally occur during a tenancy. Sometimes difficult and stressful arise as they did here and the stress leads to unproductive and unintendedly hurtful exchanges. Perhaps the communication could have been handled differently, but it is easy to wise from a distance and after the event.
When relationships become strained, landlords should exercise their landlord rights judiciously. Landlords hold a position of power in relation to the tenants which can be overlooked in the heat of the moment when there is a dispute. It may be useful to take a step back and try and understand the tenant’s perspective before taking drastic measures.
The Tribunal hopes the parties’ relationship can be repaired in the fullness of time and the tenancy can continue happily as it had before recent events.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692892 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692892 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable for damage to the fridge?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable for damage to the fridge?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions