What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4749954 about?

The tribunal order states: Wgr Property Management Limited - As Agent For Brigid May Evans must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4749954?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent: $2,160.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749954?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749954?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10367200-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4749954 about?

The tribunal order states: Wgr Property Management Limited - As Agent For Brigid May Evans must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4749954?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent: $2,160.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749954?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749954?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10367200-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Isadore Road, Saint Clair, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4749954 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4749954 — net $2,180.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund rent	$2,160.00	Refund rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,180.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,180.44

Order

Wgr Property Management Limited - As Agent For Brigid May Evans must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for moving costs and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.
After the initial hearing on 28/2/2024 the issue of unlawful entry was raised, and the application adjourned to allow the owner of the premises to attend as a witness and give evidence under oath.
Unfortunately, the owner was unable to attend this rescheduled hearing for personal reasons.
However, I declined to adjourn the matter because of the significant time delay and lack of objective evidence about why the owner could not appear.
The Tribunal attempted to telephone the owner, but the call went to voicemail.
The tenant seeks a refund of rent of $2,160.00, moving costs of $1,500.00 and exemplary damages.

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of rent?

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 10/11/2023 to 1/12/2024 @ $360.00 per week rent for a fully furnished dwelling.
The premises are a separate dwelling located on the same section behind the owner’s house.
Following a complaint by the owner about the tenant’s children staying in the premises, the landlord suggested that the tenant found another property.
The tenant submitted that when his suggestion about the tenancy reverting to a periodic was declined, he felt scared by the situation and moved out on 7/12/2023 as soon as he had found another tenancy.
On the other hand, the landlord relied on the fact that the tenant had not disclosed in the application for the tenancy that his children would be staying with him overnight occasionally.
The landlord submitted that the number of occupants in the premises was an important consideration for the owner.
To mitigate loss the landlord confirmed no break lease fees were charged.
A new tenant took over the tenancy on 25/1/2024.
I consider the tenant’s liability for rent ceased at the time he vacated the premises, despite his failure to give notice that he was leaving.
While the landlord had asked the tenant to pay rent until the premises were re- let, he also asked the tenant to move out.
I am persuaded by the evidence, that the tenant genuinely believed he needed to move out as soon as possible.
An award is made for the refund of the overpaid rent.

Is the tenant entitled to moving costs?

The tenant sought moving costs both before the tenancy began and when he moved out, totalling $1,500.00.
In support of the claim the tenant provided information from a moving company.
The landlord did not agree with reimbursement of the moving costs and in particular suggested the costs were too high.
The claim for moving costs fails.
First because the $1,000.00 moving costs to deal with possessions before the tenancy began do not form part of the tenancy between the parties.
The tenant was aware he was renting fully furnished premises and what arrangements he made for his possessions from his previous premises are a matter for him.
Second because the tenant chose to move due to the situation he found himself in, the landlord did not give him formal notice.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant suggested he felt harassed because of the behaviour of the owner and landlord over the issue of his children staying in the premises.
The reason he had not mentioned his children in his application was because he did not believe they resided in the premises.
In response the landlord relied on the number of occupants agreed to in the tenancy application.
The landlord suggested they attempted to mitigate the difficulties that arose between the owner and tenant due to the omission by the tenant of information in his application for the tenancy.
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.
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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The evidence does not support that the landlord engaged in any behaviour designed to harass the tenant.
While the tenant may have been stressed by the situation this is not enough to amount to harassment.

The tenant submitted that on 14/11/2023 the owner entered the premises, without notice or consent and pulled the blind in his loungeroom.
In support of his claim the tenant provided a copy of the text from the owner confirming that she had pulled the blind.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that the owner denied entering the premises, but rather the blind referred to was in her own dwelling which overlooked the tenancy premises.
The landlord provided photographs of the premises showing there were curtains and net curtains in the premises, but no blinds.
The tenant responded that he called the net curtains blinds.
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 and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant, to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities.
While it is possible that the owner entered the premises and pulled the blind or curtain, the evidence does not establish this is a probability because of the uncertainty created by the lack of any blinds in the premises.

Did the landlord give the tenant an unlawful notice?

The tenant suggested that the landlord gave him an unlawful notice by asking him to move out of the premises before the end of the fixed term.
In response the landlord submitted that no notice was given, but rather when the options about breaking a fixed term tenancy were discussed with the tenant he opted to move out.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act because no formal notice was issued to the tenant, albeit that the landlord did eventually suggest to the tenant he should move out.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant because he has partly succeeded with the claim and I consider it is in his interest to do so.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4749954 — net $2,180.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund rent	$2,160.00	Refund rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,180.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,180.44

Order

Wgr Property Management Limited - As Agent For Brigid May Evans must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for moving costs and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.
After the initial hearing on 28/2/2024 the issue of unlawful entry was raised, and the application adjourned to allow the owner of the premises to attend as a witness and give evidence under oath.
Unfortunately, the owner was unable to attend this rescheduled hearing for personal reasons.
However, I declined to adjourn the matter because of the significant time delay and lack of objective evidence about why the owner could not appear.
The Tribunal attempted to telephone the owner, but the call went to voicemail.
The tenant seeks a refund of rent of $2,160.00, moving costs of $1,500.00 and exemplary damages.

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of rent?

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 10/11/2023 to 1/12/2024 @ $360.00 per week rent for a fully furnished dwelling.
The premises are a separate dwelling located on the same section behind the owner’s house.
Following a complaint by the owner about the tenant’s children staying in the premises, the landlord suggested that the tenant found another property.
The tenant submitted that when his suggestion about the tenancy reverting to a periodic was declined, he felt scared by the situation and moved out on 7/12/2023 as soon as he had found another tenancy.
On the other hand, the landlord relied on the fact that the tenant had not disclosed in the application for the tenancy that his children would be staying with him overnight occasionally.
The landlord submitted that the number of occupants in the premises was an important consideration for the owner.
To mitigate loss the landlord confirmed no break lease fees were charged.
A new tenant took over the tenancy on 25/1/2024.
I consider the tenant’s liability for rent ceased at the time he vacated the premises, despite his failure to give notice that he was leaving.
While the landlord had asked the tenant to pay rent until the premises were re- let, he also asked the tenant to move out.
I am persuaded by the evidence, that the tenant genuinely believed he needed to move out as soon as possible.
An award is made for the refund of the overpaid rent.

Is the tenant entitled to moving costs?

The tenant sought moving costs both before the tenancy began and when he moved out, totalling $1,500.00.
In support of the claim the tenant provided information from a moving company.
The landlord did not agree with reimbursement of the moving costs and in particular suggested the costs were too high.
The claim for moving costs fails.
First because the $1,000.00 moving costs to deal with possessions before the tenancy began do not form part of the tenancy between the parties.
The tenant was aware he was renting fully furnished premises and what arrangements he made for his possessions from his previous premises are a matter for him.
Second because the tenant chose to move due to the situation he found himself in, the landlord did not give him formal notice.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant suggested he felt harassed because of the behaviour of the owner and landlord over the issue of his children staying in the premises.
The reason he had not mentioned his children in his application was because he did not believe they resided in the premises.
In response the landlord relied on the number of occupants agreed to in the tenancy application.
The landlord suggested they attempted to mitigate the difficulties that arose between the owner and tenant due to the omission by the tenant of information in his application for the tenancy.
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.
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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The evidence does not support that the landlord engaged in any behaviour designed to harass the tenant.
While the tenant may have been stressed by the situation this is not enough to amount to harassment.

The tenant submitted that on 14/11/2023 the owner entered the premises, without notice or consent and pulled the blind in his loungeroom.
In support of his claim the tenant provided a copy of the text from the owner confirming that she had pulled the blind.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that the owner denied entering the premises, but rather the blind referred to was in her own dwelling which overlooked the tenancy premises.
The landlord provided photographs of the premises showing there were curtains and net curtains in the premises, but no blinds.
The tenant responded that he called the net curtains blinds.
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 and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant, to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities.
While it is possible that the owner entered the premises and pulled the blind or curtain, the evidence does not establish this is a probability because of the uncertainty created by the lack of any blinds in the premises.

Did the landlord give the tenant an unlawful notice?

The tenant suggested that the landlord gave him an unlawful notice by asking him to move out of the premises before the end of the fixed term.
In response the landlord submitted that no notice was given, but rather when the options about breaking a fixed term tenancy were discussed with the tenant he opted to move out.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act because no formal notice was issued to the tenant, albeit that the landlord did eventually suggest to the tenant he should move out.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant because he has partly succeeded with the claim and I consider it is in his interest to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749954 — Tenancy dispute at 21 Isadore Road, Saint Clair, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749954 — Tenancy dispute at 21 Isadore Road, Saint Clair, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of rent?

Is the tenant entitled to moving costs?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord give the tenant an unlawful notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of rent?

Is the tenant entitled to moving costs?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord give the tenant an unlawful notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of rent?

Is the tenant entitled to moving costs?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent or notice?

Did the landlord give the tenant an unlawful notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of rent?

Is the tenant entitled to moving costs?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent or notice?

Did the landlord give the tenant an unlawful notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions