What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4710409 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4710409?

Call Out Fee: $506.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Plumbing Bill: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $857.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710409?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10337541-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4710409 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4710409?

Call Out Fee: $506.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Plumbing Bill: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $857.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710409?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10337541-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2D Robinson Street, Katikati, Katikati 3129 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710409 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4710409 — net $1,003.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 February 2024	$857.14		Rent arrears to 20 February 2024
Plumbing bill	$390.00		Plumbing bill
Call out fee	$506.00		Call out fee
Compensation - breach of quiet enjoyment		$750.00	Compensation - breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$1,753.14	$750.00
Net award	$1,003.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,003.14

Both parties attended the hearing.

This was a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 24 February 2023 and was due to run until 23 February 2024.

The tenant sought a reduction of the fixed term tenancy, bond refund, and compensation of $18,580.00 for breach of quiet enjoyment.

The landlord sought compensation of $390.00 for a plumbing bill, $506.00 for a contractor call-out fee, $285.78 for an electrician’s bill, and exemplary damages of $1,500.00 for the tenant failing to allow entry.

The parties agreed to end the fixed term early on 20 February and the landlord agreed to waive any further rent liability for the tenant beyond this date. The tenant does not dispute that $857.14 is owed for rent arrears so an order is accordingly.

The landlord indicated that that there is a further invoice for a wall repair following the final inspection. This invoice is disputed by the tenant and does not form part of the cross application therefore I am unable to make any order.

The issues to be decided are: (a) Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? (b) Is the tenant liable for the plumbing bill, contractor call-out fee, and electrician’s bill? (c) Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord to enter the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter? (d) If so, should exemplary damages be awarded? Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises. In summary, the tenant says she had multiple visits from multiple contractors throughout this tenancy and the accumulation was more than anyone could be expected to endure. The tenant does not dispute that she had a specific request to be present at all visits, or that someone she could trust be present, and this may have contributed towards the back and forth of communications and visits. The tenant says that this was exacerbated when the builder made an unannounced visit underneath the premises but she accepts that this was not sanctioned by the landlord in any way. The tenant says the landlord was spying on her via a neighbour and gaslighting her.

The landlord does not dispute that there were at least 7 different sets of contractors sent out to the premises in an 8-month period but they say they were reacting to the tenant’s complaints and trying to minimise disruptions. The landlord says this was a new-build and some maintenance was unavoidable.

I find the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment but only to a minor extent. It appears that some issues such as the switch for the insinkerator, power for the sewer pump, painting work, driveway, and the need to stabilize the piles underneath the premises because of uneven floors, were all apparent before the tenant moved in. While I agree with the landlord that there will likely be issues with a new build property that will not present themselves until the premises is lived in, this does not lessen the effect on the tenant of the multiple visits and the back and forth communications to make arrangements. I find that the visits could have been managed better to lesser the disruptions, but I also acknowledge that the landlord was trying to work with the tenant and be mindful of her personal difficulties. I find no evidence of spying or gaslighting behaviour by the landlord. On the contrary, although numerous, all of her communications are professional and courteous.

Weighing the relative merits and justice, and taking into account the fact that the landlord agreed to end the tenancy early without any further penalty to the tenant, I make an award of $750.00 compensation for the breach. Is the tenant liable for the plumbing bill, contractor call-out fee, and electrician’s bill?

Plumbing bill: The landlord is seeking $390.00 for the balance owing on a bill of $447.79. The pump station had to be cleared out of sanitary products and wet wipes. The landlord confirmed the plumber installed the pump as new.

The tenant says she paid for another plumbing bill with this bill, and she disputes the travel cost.

I am satisfied it was reasonable to use the same plumber who installed the pump and the travel costs of $30.00 are minimal in any event. I make an award for the $390.00 claimed.

Contractor call-out fee: The landlord is seeking $506.00 for a call-out fee for the driveway contractor.

The tenant says she was not given sufficient notice to move her caravan off the driveway. The tenant says she was busy as she was helping a friend that weekend and she sent an email on the Sunday evening at 7.36pm to ask the landlord if this could be done at a later date.

I find that the tenant is liable for the call-out fee of $506.00. The landlord gave more than the required notice for the work and I accept their evidence that they did not receive the tenant’s email until after the contractor had already been to the premises at

30am on Monday morning.

Electrician’s bill: The landlord is seeking $285.78 for an electrician’s bill in connection with the tenant complaining that an RCD was tripping. The electrician could find no fault with the RCD itself nor any circuits, but he opined that one of the appliances plugged into the power outlets was causing the tripping, “when it gets to a circuit point in its cycle.” The landlord says the tenant is liable for the bill as her appliances must have been at fault.

However, the electrician was only able to narrow down the likely cause to appliances using the power outlets in the laundry, kitchen island, bedroom, and one in the lounge. This is not sufficient evidence to prove that any of the tenant’s appliances were at fault as opposed to appliances provided with the premises.

I also accept the evidence of the tenant that the electrician was carrying out some tidying up work underneath the premises and swapping around switches in addition to checking for the RCD issue.

Accordingly, this part of the claim is dismissed. Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord to enter the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter?

Realty Focus Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Sutherland Assets Ltd claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter. The landlord says that the tenant was not allowing entry for essential maintenance and a property manager was trespassed.

A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

On 11 October 2023, the tenant issued the landlord with a trespass notice and asked for a change of agent. This came the same day as the landlord issued a section 56 notice to the tenant as they had received complaints from neighbours and contractors about abusive behaviour from a person who was at the premises with the tenant.

The tenant says the property manager was getting neighbours to spy on her and because of accumulation of other issues, she was fed up and did not want any further contact.

I do not find that the tenant failed to allow the landlord to enter the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord was entitled to enter. The landlord has a statutory right to enter the premises upon giving the appropriate notice so the trespass notice was of no effect. The landlord does not dispute that the tenant did allow entry for contractors albeit it took some time, but I understand the reasonable concerns of the tenant given that the builder had gone underneath the premises unannounced. There is clearly a personality clash between the tenant and property manager and when the relationship had broken down irrevocably, another property manager was appointed which was a sensible and pragmatic solution.

This part of the claim is dismissed.

If so, should exemplary damages be awarded?

As this part of the claim is not proven, no exemplary damages are awarded. Filing fees

As both parties have been partly successful in their claims, it is not appropriate to make any award for the respective filing fees. Name suppression

The tenant seeks name suppression.

Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.

The Tribunal may also, 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 (section 95A(4) RTA).

Neither party has been substantially successful although they have both been partly successful in their claims.

Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, on balance I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, the tenant considerations outweigh other considerations. The application for name suppression is granted.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4710409 — net $1,003.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 February 2024	$857.14		Rent arrears to 20 February 2024
Plumbing bill	$390.00		Plumbing bill
Call out fee	$506.00		Call out fee
Compensation - breach of quiet enjoyment		$750.00	Compensation - breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$1,753.14	$750.00
Net award	$1,003.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,003.14

Both parties attended the hearing.

This was a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 24 February 2023 and was due to run until 23 February 2024.

The tenant sought a reduction of the fixed term tenancy, bond refund, and compensation of $18,580.00 for breach of quiet enjoyment.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant says she paid for another plumbing bill with this bill, and she disputes the travel cost.

I am satisfied it was reasonable to use the same plumber who installed the pump and the travel costs of $30.00 are minimal in any event. I make an award for the $390.00 claimed.

Contractor call-out fee: The landlord is seeking $506.00 for a call-out fee for the driveway contractor.

30am on Monday morning.

I also accept the evidence of the tenant that the electrician was carrying out some tidying up work underneath the premises and swapping around switches in addition to checking for the RCD issue.

Accordingly, this part of the claim is dismissed. Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord to enter the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter?

The tenant says the property manager was getting neighbours to spy on her and because of accumulation of other issues, she was fed up and did not want any further contact.

This part of the claim is dismissed.

If so, should exemplary damages be awarded?

As this part of the claim is not proven, no exemplary damages are awarded. Filing fees

As both parties have been partly successful in their claims, it is not appropriate to make any award for the respective filing fees. Name suppression

The tenant seeks name suppression.

Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.

Neither party has been substantially successful although they have both been partly successful in their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710409 — Rent arrears at 2D Robinson Street, Katikati, Katikati 3129

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710409 — Rent arrears at 2D Robinson Street, Katikati, Katikati 3129

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

If so, should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

If so, should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions