What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4739809 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $364.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4739809?

Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $670.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $506.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739809?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10086445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4739809 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $364.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4739809?

Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $670.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $506.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739809?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10086445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Casey Avenue, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4739809 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739809 — net $364.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: curtain rail damage	$506.00		Repairs: curtain rail damage
Compensation: quiet enjoyment		$670.00	quiet enjoyment
Compensation: unlawful entry		$200.00	unlawful entry
Total award	$506.00	$870.00
Net award		$364.00
Bond		$680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$364.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $364.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

All named parties attended the hearing on 29 February 2024.
Both the tenants and the landlord have made applications to the Tribunal.
The landlord seeks money from the bond to reinstate a curtain rail, do paint touch-ups to walls, clean windows, and replace a hose connector and fireplace tools.
The tenants have applied for a refund of the final two weeks of rent they paid. They say that the landlord disrupted their tenancy by not doing maintenance in a timely way and then deciding to do it all in the last two weeks of the tenancy which was when they were trying to pack up and move. They also say that they were not given notice when tradespeople were going to come to the property.
The tenants have also applied for exemplary damages. These are like a fine, or a penalty, and may be awarded when a serious breach has been committed. The two concerns raised are that the tenants say that, at the viewing of the property, the landlord suggested that they offer a higher rent than advertised to enhance their chances of being granted the tenancy. They also say the landlord entered the house without notice on the last day of the tenancy.
This tenancy started on 11 March 2022 and ended on 9 November 2023 after the tenants gave notice.
The bond has been partially refunded to the tenants with $680.00 remaining at the Bond Centre due to this dispute. The landlord’s applications
The landlord’s applications relate to tenant obligations at the end of a tenancy. The applicable law is:- RTA = Residential Tenancies Act 1986 a. a tenant must leave tenancy premises “reasonably clean and tidy”, remove all rubbish, return all keys and remotes, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit; section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. b. a tenant is liable to compensate a landlord for careless or intentional damage to the premises that occurred during the tenancy; section 40(2)(a) and 49B RTA.
My decisions on the claims are:- a. Curtain rail: One of five brackets holding a curtain in the dining room was pulled from the wall when one of the tenants’ children pulled on the curtain. This does amount to careless damage 1 that the tenants are liable for. I agree that the work that the tenants did to patch the hole and secure the bracket in another position is not to an adequate standard. The patch is visible to some extent, but the main issue is that the bracket has been repositioned slightly out of alignment so that the curtain rail is not straight. The landlord’s photographs also show that another of the brackets is loose. I award the lower of the quoted costs to reattach the curtain rail. This is $506.00. I do not award the quoted cost to replace the curtain rail as I was 1 “Careless” is the word used in the legislation and means damage that is more than wear and tear but that is not intentional. not provided with an invoice to show this cost has been incurred or with evidence that the rail itself was permanently bent. b. Touch-ups to other walls: I dismiss this claim as there were no photos to show any damage. c. Cleaning windows: the landlord withdrew this claim and did not have photos. d. Replace missing ash bucket and fireplace items, and hose connector: I dismiss these claims as the tenants explained where they had left the fireplace items and the landlord withdrew the claim for the hose connector. The tenants’ claims Maintenance during the tenancy
A landlord must provide and maintain tenancy premises in a reasonable state of repair; section 45(1)(b) RTA.
In this case, the landlord chose to be responsible for lawn mowing and gardening during the tenancy which means these must be kept reasonably tidy.
My decisions on the maintenance concerns raised by the tenants are:- a. The landlord’s records show that he paid a contractor to do mowing and gardening. There are no invoices for a period of 6 months from November 2022 through until early May 2023. It may be that maintenance was not done during this period, but the tenants did not provide photos to evidence their claim. They have not proven that garden maintenance was inadequate, so this claim is dismissed. b. Removal of a dead tree: the texts provided did not specifically refer to a dead tree until October 2023, so I cannot determine whether this was a maintenance failing. This claim is not proven and is dismissed. c. The tenants explained that the washing line strands were rusting and progressively snapped. The evidence shows the landlord replaced two lines soon after being notified. The tenants told the landlord in June 2023 that one more line had snapped. There is no clear record of them telling him that more lines had broken and that they could not use the washing line for the last few months of the tenancy. A landlord cannot fix something unless they are told. I dismiss this claim. d. Waterblasting and cleaning of slippery and mossy outdoor areas: the evidence shows the landlord was not able to organise tradespeople to have this outdoor maintenance done in a timely way. This is a breach and I consider compensation as part of the disruption issue (below).
I recommend that the landlord organise regular outdoor maintenance on a regular and proactive basis rather than wait for tenants to notify him.
I encourage tenants to use clear and direct words in their requests or notifications to their landlord. Disruption to the tenants in the two weeks before moving out
Tenants are entitled to have what is referred to as “quiet enjoyment” of rented premises; section 38 RTA. This means they are left as undisturbed by the landlord as possible. A landlord has the right and duty to do maintenance and inspections.
The tenants’ say the landlord only prioritised maintenance after they had given notice to move out (given on 13 October 2023). They also suffered loss when a significant personal item was damaged by one of the contractors. They feel this could have been avoided if the landlord had notified them of the nature of the work to be done.
My decision is that the landlord did breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment by arranging to have waterblasting, house-washing, cleaning of paving and other maintenance done in the last two weeks of the tenancy. He was preparing the property for viewings by prospective new tenants (for an open home on Saturday 11 November 2023). The work disrupted the tenants’ moving plans (they rebooked a moving truck to accommodate the waterblasting work).
I award compensation of one week of rent as this was the week that was disrupted. This is $670.00.
I recognise the important loss the tenants suffered after the paved area was chemically sprayed. I agree that it is much preferred if a landlord notifies tenants if chemicals are to be used by contractors as some people have sensitivities or special items that need to be protected. In this case, I have decided that the damage done was not the fault of the landlord but an unfortunate accident that had a significant emotional impact. Entry into premises without consent or notice
The landlord acknowledges that he entered the premises on 9 November 2023 without giving notice or obtaining the prior consent of the tenants. He said he entered only to give entry to a carpet cleaning contractor arranged by the tenants who was not able to enter the house as the security latch was across the front door.
The tenants say the landlord also used the opportunity to look around the house and then contacted them to discuss some end-of-tenancy issues he had noted. The landlord says he did not do this.
A landlord may not enter inside premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See s48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is serious so the law deems it an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. Section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord’s entry this day was in breach of s48 RTA. It was not an emergency therefore the landlord had no right of entry. If he was unable to contact the tenants to gain consent, he should not have entered.
I award compensation of $200.00 to recognise the breach. I accept the landlord’s explanation that he only entered to let the tenants’ contractor inside. However, he should consider this fair warning that he must not enter premises except in accordance with section 48 RTA. Encouraged rent offer above the advertised amount
The tenants allege that the landlord invited or encouraged them to offer to pay rent that exceeded the amount stated in the advertisement of the premises.
Section 22G RTA says that a landlord must not do this and breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00; s22G(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
[The tenant/s] described the conversation she recalled having with the landlord while at the viewing of the premises. She said that the landlord strongly advised her that it would be to her benefit to offer over the listing price as it would help her application stand out from the others.
[The landlord/s] categorically denies saying this, saying he would never do such a thing because “it’s illegal”. He says that [The tenant/s] offered him a higher rent of $670.00 per week and he presumes this is because she wanted the property so much.
Section 22G(2) RTA makes it clear that a prospective tenant may offer to pay an amount that exceeds the stated amount of rent.
The parties’ oral recollections contradict each other. Memories can often be unreliable for various reasons including the time since the conversation or events that have happened affecting the way someone views the other person. Also, one person can say something and mean one thing, and another person can hear and interpret this in a way the speaker did not intend.
There is other evidence:- a. a copy of the Trade Me advertisement for the premises with the listed rent as $655.00 per week, b. the fact that the tenants were successful in their application to rent the premises, c. an email from [The tenant/s] to [The landlord/s] saying: Thank you again for offering us your property. We certainly look forward to moving our family in. I will transfer the deposit now, at which amount have we settled for the rent would that be $670?  d. the landlord’s reply which confirmed: Yes the rent would be at $670.00 per week
After weighing all the evidence, I have decided that the tenants have not proven that the landlord most probably encouraged them to offer more than the listed rent. The claim is dismissed. However, I urge the landlord to take care with what he says. Filing fees and suppression
Both parties have been partly successful. The filing fees will remain as paid and all names are suppressed from the published order on this occasion.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739809 — net $364.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: curtain rail damage	$506.00		Repairs: curtain rail damage
Compensation: quiet enjoyment		$670.00	quiet enjoyment
Compensation: unlawful entry		$200.00	unlawful entry
Total award	$506.00	$870.00
Net award		$364.00
Bond		$680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$364.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $364.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

All named parties attended the hearing on 29 February 2024.
Both the tenants and the landlord have made applications to the Tribunal.
The landlord seeks money from the bond to reinstate a curtain rail, do paint touch-ups to walls, clean windows, and replace a hose connector and fireplace tools.
The tenants have applied for a refund of the final two weeks of rent they paid. They say that the landlord disrupted their tenancy by not doing maintenance in a timely way and then deciding to do it all in the last two weeks of the tenancy which was when they were trying to pack up and move. They also say that they were not given notice when tradespeople were going to come to the property.
The tenants have also applied for exemplary damages. These are like a fine, or a penalty, and may be awarded when a serious breach has been committed. The two concerns raised are that the tenants say that, at the viewing of the property, the landlord suggested that they offer a higher rent than advertised to enhance their chances of being granted the tenancy. They also say the landlord entered the house without notice on the last day of the tenancy.
This tenancy started on 11 March 2022 and ended on 9 November 2023 after the tenants gave notice.
The bond has been partially refunded to the tenants with $680.00 remaining at the Bond Centre due to this dispute. The landlord’s applications
The landlord’s applications relate to tenant obligations at the end of a tenancy. The applicable law is:- RTA = Residential Tenancies Act 1986 a. a tenant must leave tenancy premises “reasonably clean and tidy”, remove all rubbish, return all keys and remotes, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit; section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. b. a tenant is liable to compensate a landlord for careless or intentional damage to the premises that occurred during the tenancy; section 40(2)(a) and 49B RTA.
My decisions on the claims are:- a. Curtain rail: One of five brackets holding a curtain in the dining room was pulled from the wall when one of the tenants’ children pulled on the curtain. This does amount to careless damage 1 that the tenants are liable for. I agree that the work that the tenants did to patch the hole and secure the bracket in another position is not to an adequate standard. The patch is visible to some extent, but the main issue is that the bracket has been repositioned slightly out of alignment so that the curtain rail is not straight. The landlord’s photographs also show that another of the brackets is loose. I award the lower of the quoted costs to reattach the curtain rail. This is $506.00. I do not award the quoted cost to replace the curtain rail as I was 1 “Careless” is the word used in the legislation and means damage that is more than wear and tear but that is not intentional. not provided with an invoice to show this cost has been incurred or with evidence that the rail itself was permanently bent. b. Touch-ups to other walls: I dismiss this claim as there were no photos to show any damage. c. Cleaning windows: the landlord withdrew this claim and did not have photos. d. Replace missing ash bucket and fireplace items, and hose connector: I dismiss these claims as the tenants explained where they had left the fireplace items and the landlord withdrew the claim for the hose connector. The tenants’ claims Maintenance during the tenancy
A landlord must provide and maintain tenancy premises in a reasonable state of repair; section 45(1)(b) RTA.
In this case, the landlord chose to be responsible for lawn mowing and gardening during the tenancy which means these must be kept reasonably tidy.
My decisions on the maintenance concerns raised by the tenants are:- a. The landlord’s records show that he paid a contractor to do mowing and gardening. There are no invoices for a period of 6 months from November 2022 through until early May 2023. It may be that maintenance was not done during this period, but the tenants did not provide photos to evidence their claim. They have not proven that garden maintenance was inadequate, so this claim is dismissed. b. Removal of a dead tree: the texts provided did not specifically refer to a dead tree until October 2023, so I cannot determine whether this was a maintenance failing. This claim is not proven and is dismissed. c. The tenants explained that the washing line strands were rusting and progressively snapped. The evidence shows the landlord replaced two lines soon after being notified. The tenants told the landlord in June 2023 that one more line had snapped. There is no clear record of them telling him that more lines had broken and that they could not use the washing line for the last few months of the tenancy. A landlord cannot fix something unless they are told. I dismiss this claim. d. Waterblasting and cleaning of slippery and mossy outdoor areas: the evidence shows the landlord was not able to organise tradespeople to have this outdoor maintenance done in a timely way. This is a breach and I consider compensation as part of the disruption issue (below).
I recommend that the landlord organise regular outdoor maintenance on a regular and proactive basis rather than wait for tenants to notify him.
I encourage tenants to use clear and direct words in their requests or notifications to their landlord. Disruption to the tenants in the two weeks before moving out
Tenants are entitled to have what is referred to as “quiet enjoyment” of rented premises; section 38 RTA. This means they are left as undisturbed by the landlord as possible. A landlord has the right and duty to do maintenance and inspections.
The tenants’ say the landlord only prioritised maintenance after they had given notice to move out (given on 13 October 2023). They also suffered loss when a significant personal item was damaged by one of the contractors. They feel this could have been avoided if the landlord had notified them of the nature of the work to be done.
My decision is that the landlord did breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment by arranging to have waterblasting, house-washing, cleaning of paving and other maintenance done in the last two weeks of the tenancy. He was preparing the property for viewings by prospective new tenants (for an open home on Saturday 11 November 2023). The work disrupted the tenants’ moving plans (they rebooked a moving truck to accommodate the waterblasting work).
I award compensation of one week of rent as this was the week that was disrupted. This is $670.00.
I recognise the important loss the tenants suffered after the paved area was chemically sprayed. I agree that it is much preferred if a landlord notifies tenants if chemicals are to be used by contractors as some people have sensitivities or special items that need to be protected. In this case, I have decided that the damage done was not the fault of the landlord but an unfortunate accident that had a significant emotional impact. Entry into premises without consent or notice
The landlord acknowledges that he entered the premises on 9 November 2023 without giving notice or obtaining the prior consent of the tenants. He said he entered only to give entry to a carpet cleaning contractor arranged by the tenants who was not able to enter the house as the security latch was across the front door.
The tenants say the landlord also used the opportunity to look around the house and then contacted them to discuss some end-of-tenancy issues he had noted. The landlord says he did not do this.
A landlord may not enter inside premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See s48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is serious so the law deems it an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. Section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord’s entry this day was in breach of s48 RTA. It was not an emergency therefore the landlord had no right of entry. If he was unable to contact the tenants to gain consent, he should not have entered.
I award compensation of $200.00 to recognise the breach. I accept the landlord’s explanation that he only entered to let the tenants’ contractor inside. However, he should consider this fair warning that he must not enter premises except in accordance with section 48 RTA. Encouraged rent offer above the advertised amount
The tenants allege that the landlord invited or encouraged them to offer to pay rent that exceeded the amount stated in the advertisement of the premises.
Section 22G RTA says that a landlord must not do this and breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00; s22G(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
[The tenant/s] described the conversation she recalled having with the landlord while at the viewing of the premises. She said that the landlord strongly advised her that it would be to her benefit to offer over the listing price as it would help her application stand out from the others.
[The landlord/s] categorically denies saying this, saying he would never do such a thing because “it’s illegal”. He says that [The tenant/s] offered him a higher rent of $670.00 per week and he presumes this is because she wanted the property so much.
Section 22G(2) RTA makes it clear that a prospective tenant may offer to pay an amount that exceeds the stated amount of rent.
The parties’ oral recollections contradict each other. Memories can often be unreliable for various reasons including the time since the conversation or events that have happened affecting the way someone views the other person. Also, one person can say something and mean one thing, and another person can hear and interpret this in a way the speaker did not intend.
There is other evidence:- a. a copy of the Trade Me advertisement for the premises with the listed rent as $655.00 per week, b. the fact that the tenants were successful in their application to rent the premises, c. an email from [The tenant/s] to [The landlord/s] saying: Thank you again for offering us your property. We certainly look forward to moving our family in. I will transfer the deposit now, at which amount have we settled for the rent would that be $670?  d. the landlord’s reply which confirmed: Yes the rent would be at $670.00 per week
After weighing all the evidence, I have decided that the tenants have not proven that the landlord most probably encouraged them to offer more than the listed rent. The claim is dismissed. However, I urge the landlord to take care with what he says. Filing fees and suppression
Both parties have been partly successful. The filing fees will remain as paid and all names are suppressed from the published order on this occasion.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739809 — Property damage at 5 Casey Avenue, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739809 — Property damage at 5 Casey Avenue, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions