What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776582?

The tribunal order states: This Order is amended by showing the correct party to receive the

How much money was awarded in case 4776582?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,692.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776582?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776582?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10079280-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776582?

The tribunal order states: This Order is amended by showing the correct party to receive the

How much money was awarded in case 4776582?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,692.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776582?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776582?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10079280-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31A Pearce Street, Halcombe, Halcombe 4779 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776582 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

31A Pearce Street, Halcombe, Halcombe 4779 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776582 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776582 — net $503.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,692.86	Rent arrears
Carpet cleaning	$250.00	Carpet cleaning
Wall repairs	$140.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$503.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$503.30

Claims and awards for application 4776582 — net $503.30 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,692.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Wall repairs

Amount: $140.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall repairs

Filing fee

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee

Net award

Landlord $503.30

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $503.30

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — Tenants’ claim for compensation for the front paddock

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Exemplary damages

Order

This Order is amended by showing the correct party to receive the reimbursement of the filing fee in paragraph 56. In all other respects the Order is unchanged.
Ross Harvie and Kathy Joanne Harvie must pay Reh Property Management Limited as agent for Dianna and Darren Erni $503.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6490595-009) to Reh Property Management Limited as agent for Dianna and Darren Erni immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears Carpet cleaning Wall repairs Filing fee $2,692.86 $250.00 $140.00 $20.44 Total award$3,103.30 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$503.30

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failing to maintain the premises (see section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 [“RTA”]), breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment (see section 38(1) RTA) and compensation for land which was fenced off from the dwelling.
The property manager named in this order was not the property manager during the tenancy. The property manager during the tenancy was telephoned during the hearing to give evidence as a witness. He declined to do so.
References in this order to the landlord’s property manager are to the property manager during the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must each establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a fixed term tenancy due to end on 2 June 2024. The tenants gave notice to the landlords that they wished to terminate the tenancy earlier. The landlords advertised the property for rental and a suitable tenant was found. A new tenancy started on 2 December 2023.
The tenants claimed that the landlords’ agent had agreed to the tenancy ending on four weeks’ notice. There is no supporting evidence for this claim, only an indication that the landlords’ property manager would discuss the situation with the owners. The landlords denied ever agreeing to the tenants’ preferred termination date. There is an email from the landlords to the tenants on 17 November 2023 confirming that there was no mutual agreement about the tenancy ending on 10 November 2023.
The tenants also claimed that the landlords initially refused to consider tenants with dogs but eventually relented. The tenants claim that the delay caused a delay in finding a new tenant and that they should not be liable for rent during this period.
Having signed a fixed term tenancy, the tenants are liable for the rent for the full period. If tenants wish to break the fixed term agreement, they can make an application to the Tribunal under section 66 RTA. The tenants did not do so.
The landlords are under no obligation to agree to end a fixed term tenancy before its termination date.
The landlords agreed to the tenants’ request, subject to the landlords finding a suitable tenant. It is entirely up to the landlords to determine who is an acceptable tenant and to determine the terms of any new tenancy. A tenant does not avoid their responsibility to pay the rent until the new tenancy commences because the landlord was not able to find a suitable new tenant in a short period.
The tenants are liable for the rent to the start of the new tenancy.
The landlords provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords claimed that a number of plants at the property had died as a result of the tenants not weeding around them and that the gravel portion of the driveway was covered in weeds.
Section 3 of the Tenancy Agreement states that “Gardens and trees are the responsibility of the landlord”. Because the tenants were unhappy with the frequency of the lawnmowing by the landlords and what the tenants perceived as untidiness, it was agreed that the tenants could mow the lawns because the tenants were “happy to mow the lawns ourselves”.
This does not remove the primary liability for the maintenance of the lawns and garden provided for under the Tenancy Agreement. I note that there was no reduction in rent in consideration of the tenants undertaking these duties and no variation of the Tenancy Agreement was signed.
Without the tenants having this obligation, the tenants are not liable for the replacement of the plants, nor for the weed spraying of the gravel area. Nor is it proven on the balance of probabilities that it was the absence of weeding which caused the plants to die.
The landlords’ claims for compensation for the plants and the weed spraying is dismissed.
The landlords provided photographic evidence that an area of the carpet in the living area became stained during the tenancy. The tenants responsibly accepted this.
The landlords tried to remove the stains with domestic products but were unsuccessful. They did not engage a commercial carpet cleaner with specialist knowledge. They provided a quote for the replacement of a small area of carpet by patching it with a matching piece. The work has not been carried out.
It is appropriate to compensate the landlords for the staining. However, it is only appropriate to award a sum that would pay for the carpet in the affected area being commercially cleaned by a contractor experienced in the removal of stains. There is no evidence before the tribunal that the stains cannot be removed by a qualified, commercial carpet cleaner.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided photographic evidence and the tenants accepted that there were a number of dents and damages to the walls during the tenancy. I am satisfied from the amount of damage that it is not fair wear and tear. It is careless damage.
The amount claimed for materials is modest and this sum is proven. Tenants’ claim for failure to maintain
The tenants’ claim that the landlords failed to maintain the lawns and gardens in a reasonably tidy state during the tenancy. Their complaints were that it was unsightly for visitors and embarrassing to the tenants and that it hampered their two children’s ability to enjoy the large section.
The grass was recently sown at the start of the tenancy. Lawnmowing in the Manawatu winter is always difficult. It is difficult for the tenants to sustain a claim for them not being mowed after the date on which the tenants agreed to mow the lawns themselves. Any photographic evidence supplied by either party of the lawns does not indicate that they were in an especially bad state given that this is a newly built and planted property in a rural area.
There is no photographic evidence of the state of the lawns during the period when the landlords had agreed to mow them. The parties disagree on the number of times they were mown by the landlords. A “tidy condition” does not mean in the condition of a show home, nor is there any obligation on the landlords to maintain the property in any better condition than at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlords failed in their duty to keep the lawns in a tidy condition so that they should pay compensation to the tenants for the state of the lawns during the tenancy. If it had been the tenants’ responsibility to mow the lawns under the tenancy agreement and the landlords had brought a claim for compensation because the tenants had failed to keep the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition, on the evidence before the Tribunal, I would also have dismissed their claim.
It follows that I am not satisfied that the landlords have committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages would be payable.
The tenants’ claim under section 45(1)(b) RTA is dismissed. Tenants’ claim for breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants’ claim for breach of quiet enjoyment relate to the landlords coming onto the property without notice to mow the lawns and tend to the gardens; and for the landlords’ contractors coming onto the property and erecting a fence dividing off the front paddock. The tenants also claim compensation for the paddock being removed from the rented premises.
The tenants also claimed exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach of their 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.
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.
A landlord is permitted to come onto the property for a reasonable purpose – here, mowing the lawns, tending the garden – as they were required to do under the Tenancy Agreement - and erecting a stock fence. The landlord must give notice pursuant to section 48 RTA, if they enter inside the house on the property. The landlords did not do so and so did not need to comply with the notice requirements.
While it may have been prudent for the landlords to notify the tenants when they were coming onto the property, there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
From the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlords’ actions have only interfered with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment in a minimal way. Their actions do not amount to harassment. The tenants’ claim for exemplary damages and compensation is dismissed. Tenants’ claim for compensation for the front paddock
The Tenancy Agreement does not contain any indication that the front paddock of the premises was not included in the premises let to the tenants. The landlords gave evidence that it was always their intention that it be excluded and that their property manager failed to include this provision in the Tenancy Agreement.
Once the new fence was constructed, the tenants were advised that this area was excluded from the tenancy. No other party occupied or used the front paddock during the tenancy, nor was there evidence that the tenants used this area during the tenancy. The tenants certainly believed that it was available for their use at the time they entered into the tenancy agreement. Any misunderstanding between the parties arose because the landlord’s property manager at the time, failed to exclude this area in the tenancy agreement. Eventually, towards the end of the tenancy, the landlords advised the tenants that they could use the front paddock.
The tenants claim compensation for the lack of use of the front paddock by way of a reduction of rent.
The landlord provided a rental assessment that concluded that the rent during the tenancy had been calculated based on the front paddock being excluded.
The tenants did not provide any evidence justifying a reduction of rent for the removal of the paddock from the tenancy. The tenants have not provided any evidence of loss.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants have suffered loss or are entitled to be compensated for the period when the landlord claimed that the front paddock was not included in the tenancy or was fenced off.
Because the landlords have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776582 — net $503.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,692.86	Rent arrears
Carpet cleaning	$250.00	Carpet cleaning
Wall repairs	$140.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$503.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$503.30

Claims and awards for application 4776582 — net $503.30 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,692.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Wall repairs

Amount: $140.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall repairs

Filing fee

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee

Net award

Landlord $503.30

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $503.30

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — Tenants’ claim for compensation for the front paddock

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Exemplary damages

Order

This Order is amended by showing the correct party to receive the reimbursement of the filing fee in paragraph 56. In all other respects the Order is unchanged.
Ross Harvie and Kathy Joanne Harvie must pay Reh Property Management Limited as agent for Dianna and Darren Erni $503.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6490595-009) to Reh Property Management Limited as agent for Dianna and Darren Erni immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears Carpet cleaning Wall repairs Filing fee $2,692.86 $250.00 $140.00 $20.44 Total award$3,103.30 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$503.30

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failing to maintain the premises (see section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 [“RTA”]), breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment (see section 38(1) RTA) and compensation for land which was fenced off from the dwelling.
The property manager named in this order was not the property manager during the tenancy. The property manager during the tenancy was telephoned during the hearing to give evidence as a witness. He declined to do so.
References in this order to the landlord’s property manager are to the property manager during the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must each establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a fixed term tenancy due to end on 2 June 2024. The tenants gave notice to the landlords that they wished to terminate the tenancy earlier. The landlords advertised the property for rental and a suitable tenant was found. A new tenancy started on 2 December 2023.
The tenants claimed that the landlords’ agent had agreed to the tenancy ending on four weeks’ notice. There is no supporting evidence for this claim, only an indication that the landlords’ property manager would discuss the situation with the owners. The landlords denied ever agreeing to the tenants’ preferred termination date. There is an email from the landlords to the tenants on 17 November 2023 confirming that there was no mutual agreement about the tenancy ending on 10 November 2023.
The tenants also claimed that the landlords initially refused to consider tenants with dogs but eventually relented. The tenants claim that the delay caused a delay in finding a new tenant and that they should not be liable for rent during this period.
Having signed a fixed term tenancy, the tenants are liable for the rent for the full period. If tenants wish to break the fixed term agreement, they can make an application to the Tribunal under section 66 RTA. The tenants did not do so.
The landlords are under no obligation to agree to end a fixed term tenancy before its termination date.
The landlords agreed to the tenants’ request, subject to the landlords finding a suitable tenant. It is entirely up to the landlords to determine who is an acceptable tenant and to determine the terms of any new tenancy. A tenant does not avoid their responsibility to pay the rent until the new tenancy commences because the landlord was not able to find a suitable new tenant in a short period.
The tenants are liable for the rent to the start of the new tenancy.
The landlords provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords claimed that a number of plants at the property had died as a result of the tenants not weeding around them and that the gravel portion of the driveway was covered in weeds.
Section 3 of the Tenancy Agreement states that “Gardens and trees are the responsibility of the landlord”. Because the tenants were unhappy with the frequency of the lawnmowing by the landlords and what the tenants perceived as untidiness, it was agreed that the tenants could mow the lawns because the tenants were “happy to mow the lawns ourselves”.
This does not remove the primary liability for the maintenance of the lawns and garden provided for under the Tenancy Agreement. I note that there was no reduction in rent in consideration of the tenants undertaking these duties and no variation of the Tenancy Agreement was signed.
Without the tenants having this obligation, the tenants are not liable for the replacement of the plants, nor for the weed spraying of the gravel area. Nor is it proven on the balance of probabilities that it was the absence of weeding which caused the plants to die.
The landlords’ claims for compensation for the plants and the weed spraying is dismissed.
The landlords provided photographic evidence that an area of the carpet in the living area became stained during the tenancy. The tenants responsibly accepted this.
The landlords tried to remove the stains with domestic products but were unsuccessful. They did not engage a commercial carpet cleaner with specialist knowledge. They provided a quote for the replacement of a small area of carpet by patching it with a matching piece. The work has not been carried out.
It is appropriate to compensate the landlords for the staining. However, it is only appropriate to award a sum that would pay for the carpet in the affected area being commercially cleaned by a contractor experienced in the removal of stains. There is no evidence before the tribunal that the stains cannot be removed by a qualified, commercial carpet cleaner.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided photographic evidence and the tenants accepted that there were a number of dents and damages to the walls during the tenancy. I am satisfied from the amount of damage that it is not fair wear and tear. It is careless damage.
The amount claimed for materials is modest and this sum is proven. Tenants’ claim for failure to maintain
The tenants’ claim that the landlords failed to maintain the lawns and gardens in a reasonably tidy state during the tenancy. Their complaints were that it was unsightly for visitors and embarrassing to the tenants and that it hampered their two children’s ability to enjoy the large section.
The grass was recently sown at the start of the tenancy. Lawnmowing in the Manawatu winter is always difficult. It is difficult for the tenants to sustain a claim for them not being mowed after the date on which the tenants agreed to mow the lawns themselves. Any photographic evidence supplied by either party of the lawns does not indicate that they were in an especially bad state given that this is a newly built and planted property in a rural area.
There is no photographic evidence of the state of the lawns during the period when the landlords had agreed to mow them. The parties disagree on the number of times they were mown by the landlords. A “tidy condition” does not mean in the condition of a show home, nor is there any obligation on the landlords to maintain the property in any better condition than at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlords failed in their duty to keep the lawns in a tidy condition so that they should pay compensation to the tenants for the state of the lawns during the tenancy. If it had been the tenants’ responsibility to mow the lawns under the tenancy agreement and the landlords had brought a claim for compensation because the tenants had failed to keep the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition, on the evidence before the Tribunal, I would also have dismissed their claim.
It follows that I am not satisfied that the landlords have committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages would be payable.
The tenants’ claim under section 45(1)(b) RTA is dismissed. Tenants’ claim for breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants’ claim for breach of quiet enjoyment relate to the landlords coming onto the property without notice to mow the lawns and tend to the gardens; and for the landlords’ contractors coming onto the property and erecting a fence dividing off the front paddock. The tenants also claim compensation for the paddock being removed from the rented premises.
The tenants also claimed exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach of their 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.
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.
A landlord is permitted to come onto the property for a reasonable purpose – here, mowing the lawns, tending the garden – as they were required to do under the Tenancy Agreement - and erecting a stock fence. The landlord must give notice pursuant to section 48 RTA, if they enter inside the house on the property. The landlords did not do so and so did not need to comply with the notice requirements.
While it may have been prudent for the landlords to notify the tenants when they were coming onto the property, there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
From the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlords’ actions have only interfered with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment in a minimal way. Their actions do not amount to harassment. The tenants’ claim for exemplary damages and compensation is dismissed. Tenants’ claim for compensation for the front paddock
The Tenancy Agreement does not contain any indication that the front paddock of the premises was not included in the premises let to the tenants. The landlords gave evidence that it was always their intention that it be excluded and that their property manager failed to include this provision in the Tenancy Agreement.
Once the new fence was constructed, the tenants were advised that this area was excluded from the tenancy. No other party occupied or used the front paddock during the tenancy, nor was there evidence that the tenants used this area during the tenancy. The tenants certainly believed that it was available for their use at the time they entered into the tenancy agreement. Any misunderstanding between the parties arose because the landlord’s property manager at the time, failed to exclude this area in the tenancy agreement. Eventually, towards the end of the tenancy, the landlords advised the tenants that they could use the front paddock.
The tenants claim compensation for the lack of use of the front paddock by way of a reduction of rent.
The landlord provided a rental assessment that concluded that the rent during the tenancy had been calculated based on the front paddock being excluded.
The tenants did not provide any evidence justifying a reduction of rent for the removal of the paddock from the tenancy. The tenants have not provided any evidence of loss.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants have suffered loss or are entitled to be compensated for the period when the landlord claimed that the front paddock was not included in the tenancy or was fenced off.
Because the landlords have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776582 — Rent arrears at 31A Pearce Street, Halcombe, Halcombe 4779

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776582 — Rent arrears at 31A Pearce Street, Halcombe, Halcombe 4779

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions