What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4726491 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4726491?

Agreement: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $3,640.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,520.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9799458-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4726491 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4726491?

Agreement: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $3,640.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,520.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9799458-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4726491 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4726491 — net $14,370.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,520.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Fail to provide written		$350.00	Fail to provide written
agreement		$700.00	agreement
Exemplary damages: Fail to provide required		$7,200.00	Fail to provide required
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment		$3,640.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: unlawful notices of termination		$3,000.00	unlawful notices of termination
Exemplary damages: fail to provide smoke alarm		$2,000.00	fail to provide smoke alarm
Total award	$2,520.00	$16,890.00
Net award		$14,370.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$14,370.00

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by teleconference. Background

The landlord inherited the premises from his father. Initially he and his brother had a joint interest in it, but the landlord acquired his brother’s interest and thereafter became sole landlord.

The premises were in need of significant maintenance and refurbishment.

The tenant is a professional painter. The landlord and his brother discussed with the tenant an arrangement where she would occupy the property and paint it, as well as undertake other maintenance/ upgrading work.

The parties exchanged correspondence and draft agreements with their respective understandings of the arrangement. The landlord wanted to have it recorded on Google Docs with a “versioning” system, recording each party’s variations over time. No written agreement was finalised or signed by them. Both parties’ applications record that the tenancy began on 10 December 2022.

Throughout the correspondence was the understanding that the tenant and her children would live at the premises, “....as an informal tenant and in exchange the tenant would pay $280 per week or do 7 hours of work at the house per week at the rate of $40 per hour.”

It is not disputed that the tenant completed a lot of improvement work at the premises as well as arranging for a significant amount of other skilled work to be completed by her father and other tradespeople at charges and at a speed that the landlord would not have been able to arrange himself. The tenant made the premises into a home for she and her children. It is also clear that the landlord regularly paid the tenant for work undertaken on the property as well as paying the tradespeople she arranged to do other work.

In the early stages of the tenancy there seems to have been a good working and occasionally social relationship between the parties.

On 5 March 2023 a data connection was being installed. The tenant declined to give the landlord the access password. The landlord took offense and txt her “Hi [tenant], Please move out ASAP. Thanks for the great work so far. You & [redacted] are welcome to keep working for me. All the best. Cheers, [landlord].” The tenant protested and the landlord relented.

On 15 October 2023 the landlord issued the tenant with a 63-day notice of termination under s.51(1)(a) on the grounds that he was having to move back into the premises himself because the owners of the property he was living in might need to return from [country] for health reasons. The tenant asked for more time.

On 1 November 2023 the landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day notice of termination requiring that she vacate the premises by 31 January 2024, on the grounds that the landlord required possession of the premises to undertake major renovation work. The applications

The first application was filed by the landlord. In that application the landlord seeks confirmation that the tenant must vacate the premises by 31 January 2024 in terms of his notice of termination.

The landlord also now seeks an Order for payment of rent arrears.

The tenant then filed a cross application. In her application, the tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for several alleged breaches of the landlords’ obligations regarding the condition of the premises, termination of the tenancy and intrusions into her quiet enjoyment of the premises.

Each of those claims is assessed separately below. Termination of the tenancy – 90 day notice

The tenant does not accept that there was a legitimate basis for the landlord to terminate the tenancy. She does, however, confirm that she will vacate the premises by 31 January 2024. A termination and possession Order is accordingly made by consent.

The tenant claims that the landlord was not entitled to terminate the tenancy at all. Her position is that it was part of their agreement and discussed many times, that having undertaken all the renovation work she did, the tenant was to be given the opportunity to make the premises a long term home for herself and her children. The tenant says that it was that understanding that led her to do a lot more improvement work than she was ever paid for or was required to do in terms of her obligations to the landlord.

The evidence provided by third parties who knew the situation suggests that the landlord has gained a significant benefit from the extent of work carried out by the tenant to improve the premises and by the access the tenant’s contacts gave to tradespeople in high demand on the island and at good rates.

It seems likely that some of the tenant’s work may have been done without direct reward, against the tenant’s hope and expectation that the premises could be a long term home for she and her children. The evidence presented however does not support a finding that her hope and expectation was an enforceable term of the parties’ agreement. On the contrary, the evidence is that the tenant was aware that the property was on the market, for much of the early part of the tenancy at least and helped ensure the property was presented well for open homes. I do not see that as consistent with the tenant having an ongoing right of occupation.

What the draft agreement records is: “I am aware the houses on the market and allow open homes with notice during summer. And will ensure the place is tidy for these reasons and also as I am tidy by nature. Possibly these do slow down when the summer rush is over however I am flexible. All I ask is at least 24 hours notice for anyone other than these times that are wishing to come over? Including you as my landlords for this is for basic privacy reasons....and if you're both happy with the arrangement we consider the option of myself taking over a more permanent visit residency in the future? Pending sale of house obviously.”

I do not find it proved that the landlord was precluded from ending the tenancy by proper notice.

Having heard the landlord's evidence about the extent of the renovation work required, some of it to remedy fundamental safety issues, I am satisfied that the landlord does intend to carry out extensive alterations and refurbishment of the premises, which will start within 90 days of the tenancy ending.

It would not be reasonably practical to complete that work with the tenant in occupation, though I realise that will seem somewhat ironic to the tenant who has had to live amidst the renovation of the property for the last 12 months or so.

I find that the notice of termination issued on 1 November 2023, was valid in terms of s.51(2)(f) RTA. Other termination notices

That is not the case with the notice of immediate termination sent by the landlord on 5 March 2023. The landlord suggests that when he demanded that the tenant leave ASAP on that date, there was no tenancy in place. He bases that on the assertion that the tenant had only, surreptitiously, made a rent payment into his account on 2 March 2023 – the inference being that she “trapped” him into the tenancy.

On my view of the evidence, although the parties had not signed an agreement, the tenant had by then been occupying the premises as her residence, with the landlord’s knowledge for some months. That occupation was under an agreed arrangement that contemplated payment of rent by the performance of work. The tenant had undertaken renovation work and arranged for other work to be done from which the landlord benefitted.

The landlord’s submission is that that there was no “rent” component to that work because he paid for it separately but at that stage of the tenancy, while there might have been questions as to the quantum of rent paid by the tenant through doing that work, there was a tenancy agreement in place in terms of the definitions in s.2 RTA.

Nor was the 63-day notice issued by the landlord on 18 October 2023 valid. The notice records that it was issued on the grounds that the landlord intended to move back into the property. The evidence does not suggest there was any such firm intention or need. The landlord’s submission says: “Some time ago I noticed that a methamphetamine pipe was sitting on the window sill. I suspect that she is consuming militant methamphetamine in the house. Feel uneasy about this. I have sensitive lungs and I hope that methamphetamine residue wont effect me if I move in. Over this rental period I've learnt the hard way that my house is unfit and unsafe for renting. To truly expose my house’s problems, I should have lived here myself full time. before allowing someone to reside there. Progress of renovating is too slow with someone living there. [The tenant] was bringing more things into the house and property. I agree that a tenant should be able to furnish the house any way they want but I found it almost impossible to renovate around the furniture. [The tenant] was becoming more and more annoyed at my visits to renovate. She would insist on me leaving the house if she went out for some reason. So I went along with that. Not enough done. I may need to move back into my house at some stage. I'm currently renting my mother's house in [Event location suppressed] If you could stop, her mother is in financial trouble in Australia. I am paying and paying her bills. She may need to come back soon to sell her [Event location suppressed] house or move back in. 15 October 2023. I've sent [the tenant] 63 day notice to terminate the periodic tenancy. [The tenant] was very upset and phoned me crying, wondering what went wrong. She said. "these things can always be worked out” She accused me of not having a heart and being very cruel. I said the decision was final. [the tenant] replied with an e-mail.... She wanted the notice changed to at least 90 days as there is very little accommodation in [Event location suppressed] until next year. 17 October. 2023 [the tenant] visited me with her close friend ...... I agreed to change to a 90 day notice but there was a condition. I said the following to [the tenant]and her friend. “For some time I have been very concerned that methamphetamine residue is forming on the walls inside my house. if you are smoking it. Are you okay with me testing for methamphetamine? If I find nothing, I would change the notice to 90 days. [The tenant] happily replied. Yes.’ [the tenant] and [her friend] were very happy that [the tenant] was now able to stay for 90 days. We had plans the next day to fix up everything with a tenancy agreement”

In fact the next day the tenant issued the landlord with a trespass notice.

That passage from the landlord's submission, together with oral evidence given at the hearing, lead me to find that while the landlord saw a possibility that he might need to do so in the future, he had no immediate intention or need to move into the premises when he issued that notice. He did not “require the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as [his] principal place of residence...” (s.51(1)(a))

I am left with the inference that the landlord by then regretted the decision to grant a tenancy to the tenant as he had found that it was not compatible with his wish to continue having unrestricted access to do the property to continue his renovation work. He preferred the tenant to be gone and sought the quickest route.

Section 60AA provides that: “A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.”

Breaching that obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The evidence persuades me that the initial notice of immediate termination was given by the landlord in response to the tenant having asserted a right to privacy in terms of the data connection. The landlord must have known that he was not entitled to end a tenancy without notice. I find that the 63-day notice was issued because the landlord thought it was a means of having the tenant vacate the premises as soon as possible, in a way that he could justify under the RTA, knowing that he had no need to occupy the premises.

The adverse effect on the tenant of receiving those notices is described in the landlord’s submission.

In case of the first notice, it was an entirely improper threat to immediately evict the tenant, because he was annoyed with her.

The public interest requires that the wrong in the landlords’ actions be recognised by a significant award of exemplary damages.

Are rent arrears owed?

The landlord claims that 9 weeks rent is owed. His rent records show a payment of rent on 26 October 2023 and then no further rent payments until 5 December 2023.

The tenant acknowledges that rent was not paid during that period. She says though that she carried out 5 ½ weeks’ work at the premises which the landlord refused to pay for, so she was entitled to offset her rent against what she was owed by the landlord.

The landlord’s evidence is that although the draft agreements noted that rent could be paid either in cash or by performance of work, the landlord always kept those 2 things separate. The tenant paid the weekly rent into his bank account and he paid the tenant for work done based on invoices she sent to him.

The landlord’s position is supported by the documentary record and I am persuaded on balance that by then, the parties had effectively agreed to work in that way.

That being so, the tenant needs to provide evidence to prove a right of set off against her rent. The draft agreement records that “Pleaze note however that i will not carry out necessary work without running everything past you both first.”

The evidence presented does not persuade me that the work carried out by the tenant during that 9 week period was work agreed with the landlord so as to give the tenant a right to withhold rent in lieu of payment for that work.

I therefore find that rent is owed by the tenant for that period. Tenant’s Claims

It is clear that the landlord failed to meet very many of his obligations under the RTA in terms of providing information, documenting the agreement and as regards the condition and compliance of the premises.

It is useful to note, before beginning an analysis of the tenant’s specific claims, that for the most part the tenant was well aware of those shortcomings but elected to proceed with the arrangement anyway.

However, s.11 RTA provides that: “Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions (1) Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless—(a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. (3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.”

Accordingly, the tenant is entitled to the protections of the RTA despite any agreement to the contrary. Failing to document the agreement

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did provide a draft agreement to the landlord who wanted to convert it to a Google format. In the end no agreement was documented.

As a result, the tenant's position has been uncertain, as is apparent from the discussion above about the tenant’s right to pay rent through services provided and the landlord’s assertion that he was entitled to have the tenant vacate immediately, as late as March 2023.

The landlord was aware of the need to document the agreement and failure to do so should attract an award of exemplary damages. Failure to provide required information

The landlord's failure to document the agreement means that the landlord also failed to provide to the tenant any of the information that landlords are required to include in agreements to inform tenants about the premises and their condition.

The required information is set out in s.13A. There are separate requirements for provision of information concerning the terms of the parties’ agreement and those relating to the premises such as insulation and Healthy Homes compliance.

Failure to provide each of those categories of information in an agreement is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.

It is just to make an award of exemplary damages for each of those breaches, applying the same reasoning as above in relation to the landlord’s failure to document the agreement. Failure to meet healthy Homes Standards

[The tenant/s]ection 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards).

This was a general tenancy with commencement date between 28 August 2022 and 3 March 2025, so was required to be compliant those standards within 120 days after the tenancy began.

It is clear that the premises were not compliant and are not fully compliant now. The landlord’s submission notes that: “Part of the ceiling needs new R3 insulation The floor needs new R3 insulation, No ventilation fans in the kitchen or the laundry room Many windows do not open properly No built in central heating in the living area.”

The landlord says he has been concerned about the premises’ non- compliance throughout the tenancy and was reluctant to enter into the arrangement in the first place, but felt pressured to do so.

The tenant too says that she has been concerned about the draughts, lack of heating and insulation in particular, as well as the inadequate provision of cooking facilities. She says that she has raised these concerns with the landlord and asked that they be prioritised but that there was always other work the landlord wanted done first.

My view of the evidence is that although the landlord paid for work done at the premises, he has received a very significant benefit from this tenancy. He has received rent while having the tenant living on site and improving the premises both herself and by arranging other work that the landlord would have struggled to get done as quickly, cheaply or well. While achieving that the tenant and her children have been living in premises that, in terms of Healthy Homes standards, were not suitable for their occupation.

Had the landlord truly been concerned about achieving compliance it seems to me there was ample time for him to do so if that work was given priority.

The extent of the premises’ failure to meet healthy home standards is extensive. Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Healthy Homes standards for heating, ventilation, draught stopping, water ingress and insulation.

In terms of the landlord’s own submissions there has been a continuing failure to meet at least 4 of the 5 standards – for heating, ventilation, draught stopping and insulation.

Failure to meet any one of the standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.

The landlord was aware of the compliance shortcomings of the property but went ahead with the arrangement anyway and has benefitted from it.

As noted, in terms of s.11 the tenant cannot contract out of her entitlements and so her decision to enter into the arrangement with knowledge of the premises’ shortcomings cannot absolve the landlord of responsibility to meet his obligations. It is however a factor that I consider appropriate to take into account in assessing the quantum of exemplary damages.

Weighing the above considerations, the public interest in preventing landlords benefitting from renting out unhealthy premises, which was exactly the case here and noting that there were multiple breaches, I award $7,200.00 which is the maximum sum for a single breach or 25% of the total for the 4 standards failures. [The tenant/s]

Section 45(1) requires that a landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.73. The landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. In doing so he has committed an unlawful act.

Exemplary damages for the premises’ failure to meet Healthy Homes standards have been awarded. To make a separate award of exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s maintenance/ repair obligations which relate to essentially the same acts/omissions would risk doubly penalising the landlord which I do not consider just.

In considering whether compensation for loss (as distinct from exemplary damages) should be paid to the tenant for that breach I do need again to take into account that the tenant entered into the agreement knowing that the premises required extensive maintenance/ repair work. The rent payable reflected the condition of the premises as known to the tenant.

In my view the landlord’s wrongful actions in terms of the condition of the premises did not mean that the tenant received less than she had contracted for. That being so, there is no loss, as such, to compensate.

In these circumstances the wrong done by the landlord in having the tenant occupy substandard premises is better addressed through the award of exemplary damages than by way of compensation for loss. Smoke Alarms

Section 45(1)(ba) requires that a landlord comply with all regulations regarding smoke alarms.

Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord did not ensure that the premises were protected by smoke alarms. He did put a smoke alarm in the letterbox and let the tenant know it was there and instructed her where and how it was to be installed, but that was not until November 2023, after the tenant’s application had been filed.

I find it difficult to reconcile the landlord's statements that he has been concerned throughout the tenancy with the premises’ non-compliance and safety issues, with this fundamental safety omission, that could immediately and easily have been addressed.

I struggle to understand the landlord’s intentions in failing to meet this simple obligation except that perhaps there was improvement work that was given a higher priority. In my view the failure is exacerbated in that the failure to ensure the premises were protected by a smoke alarm was in the context of premises where building/ renovation work was being carried out that arguably heightened the risk of fire.

A significant award of exemplary damages should be made to recognise that breach. In my view this is a breach different in nature to Healthy Homes compliance and which is made a distinct obligation by the RTA so the I do not consider this award constitutes a double penalty. Breach of right to quiet enjoyment

Section 38 RTA provides that, “(1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”

The tenant’s evidence is that when the tenancy began the landlord largely came and went from the premises as he chose. The landlord’s own submissions make it clear that he never intended to give the tenant the notice required by s.48 before coming to the premises. He says that was because it made things difficult for him in carrying out the renovation work at the premises that he wanted to do. His submission records: “The tenant initially wanted me to give her 24 hours’ notice before I entered my property to conduct renovations. I replied that this could never work for me. Due to the demands of my job in business and the huge amount of work needed on the house, I needed to visit my house at short notice to work on whether I can. She reluctantly accepted that I could find her first before visiting on the same day full. I should stress that I did not intend to visit every day. As it happened, weeks have gone by with no visits at all. I just needed to work on the house whenever I got the time to do so.”

Those expectations on the landlord’s part are not compatible with renting the premises to the tenant and her entitlement to quiet enjoyment of it.

Throughout the landlord’s submissions the premises are referred to as “my house”. That reflects my impression from the evidence that the landlord ` always saw the premises in only those terms ie. not as the tenant’s home.

It is clear that the landlord regarded himself as entitled to access any part of the premises that he chose. He felt justified in going into the tenant’s bedroom because he said some of his things were stored there. He acknowledged in his evidence breaking into a part of the garage area that had been locked by the tenant to protect her child’s bike.

I find that the landlord expected to have the benefits of a tenant paying rent and working on the property but without respecting the tenant’s right to privacy and peaceful enjoyment of her home.

The landlord submission notes: “I had to do work up in the ceiling on many occasions. I had many items stored in the main bedroom wardrobe such as tools, supplies, & other odds and ends. My drawers with my belongings are shown in the inspection video.” That in itself is inconsistent with the tenant having the right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The following passage in the parties’ respective submissions are illuminating. The tenant alleges: “Many breaches of privacy and concern of privacy by tenant for themself and their child being possibly being watched were dismissed by applicant and told to “get out". -Tenant initially agreed to applicant arriving unannounced to work under the house but after realising nothing was getting done wondered why applicant kept insisting and said applicant could not have access to property whenever he wanted at any time”

The landlord responds: “I have only visited the house to do work on it, nothing else. Unfortunately, with almost every visit that I was there, [the tenant/s] would cut it short, because she had to leave the house for whatever reason. This meant I could never finish anything that I started.”

What that exchange suggests to me is that the tenant was clearly uncomfortable with the extent of the landlord’s visits to the property and would find reasons to leave. The landlord does not deny expecting unrestricted access to the premises but complains at the inconvenience.

While there may be questions about her legal right to do so, the tenant felt it necessary to issue a trespass notice against the landlord. The landlord went to the premises anyway, in circumstances where the police saw fit to enforce the notice against him.

Statements of support provided by the tenant confirm the tenant’s evidence about the landlord working in the ceiling and under the floor of the property creating significant discomfort for those inside the premises.

The evidence does not support a finding that the landlord was using his visits to the premises for any improper purpose as suspected by the tenant. I do however find that the landlord regularly and fundamentally breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.

The evidence makes it clear that the landlord’s actions and continued access to the premises during the tenancy had a very significant impact on the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises. 97Unlike the situation regarding the condition and non-compliance of the premises, these are not rights the tenant agreed to waive.

Compensation is due to the tenant for those ongoing intrusions on her use and enjoyment of the premises which I fix at $3,640.00 - 25% of the rent for the 12 months of the tenancy.

Breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 may be awarded (s.38(3)).

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 landlord’s visits to the property were intrusive, insensitive and in breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. I do not consider though that they amounted to harassment. It does not seem to me to be behaviour directed at the tenant – rather they reflect the landlord pursuing his own interests without due regard to the tenant's.

The landlord’s improper use of termination notices was intimidatory, directed at the tenant and was troubling and distressing to her. However, exemplary damages have been awarded against the landlord for giving those notices and a further award of exemplary damages would not be just. Water

The tenant says that the landlord should compensate her for the cost of having to buy water for the premises.

In terms of section 45(1)(ca), the landlord must, “if the premises do not have a reticulated water supply, provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.” Under s.39 it is then for the tenant to meet the cost of water used.

This is the tenants claim so it is for her to bring evidence to prove that the landlord breached his obligation to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. I do not find that claim proved on the evidence provided.

Each party has had claims upheld and no Order is made regarding the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4726491 — net $14,370.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,520.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Fail to provide written		$350.00	Fail to provide written
agreement		$700.00	agreement
Exemplary damages: Fail to provide required		$7,200.00	Fail to provide required
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment		$3,640.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: unlawful notices of termination		$3,000.00	unlawful notices of termination
Exemplary damages: fail to provide smoke alarm		$2,000.00	fail to provide smoke alarm
Total award	$2,520.00	$16,890.00
Net award		$14,370.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$14,370.00