What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782340 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4782340?

Compensation: Dishwasher: $885.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Oven: $1,165.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rangehood: $442.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,670.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782340?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10781592-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782340 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4782340?

Compensation: Dishwasher: $885.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Oven: $1,165.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rangehood: $442.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,670.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782340?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10781592-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

172 Glenbrook Road, Karaka, RD4, Pukekohe 2679 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782340 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782340 — net $1,975.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 February 2024	$6,670.00		Rent arrears to 29 February 2024
Compensation: oven		$1,165.71	oven
Compensation: rangehood		$442.86	rangehood
Compensation: dishwasher		$885.71	dishwasher
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,000.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$1,200.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Total award	$6,670.00	$4,694.28
Net award	$1,975.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,975.72

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782340 — net $1,975.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 February 2024	$6,670.00		Rent arrears to 29 February 2024
Compensation: oven		$1,165.71	oven
Compensation: rangehood		$442.86	rangehood
Compensation: dishwasher		$885.71	dishwasher
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,000.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$1,200.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Total award	$6,670.00	$4,694.28
Net award	$1,975.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,975.72

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Just Prestige Properties Limited As Agent For Tik Yee Wong Mark Liu: $1,975.72 Matthew Paul Scrimgeour, Rebecca Scrimgeour: $1,364.28

Reasons

This is a cross application. The property is a rural home. The tenants rented the large 4-bedroom home. In a separate commercial lease, they leased the glasshouses and land adjacent to the home. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear disputes regarding the residential tenancy not the commercial lease.
There is a considerable history of these applications in the Tribunal. In December 2023 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. The tenant alleged that the landlord had credited rent payments for the residential tenancy towards the commercial lease, which had put the residential tenancy rent account into arrears. The tenant stated that the landlord had no authority to apportion these rent payments in this way and was effectively manipulating the payments to allow the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord disputed this allegation. It stated that it had apportioned the rent payments for the house and the commercial tenancy as instructed/ or agreed by the tenant. The matter was adjourned, by that time it was next set down for hearing in February 2024 the tenant had filed a counterclaim.
The tenancy ended on the 29 February 2024 by agreement.
The matter was part heard by me in April, and I refer to the adjournment order which sets out the allegations made by each party.
I finally heard all of the evidence on the 5 August 2024. The claims
The landlord is seeking $6720.00 in rent arrears.
The tenant claims that the landlord breached their obligations in the RTA by: a. Requiring rent more than 2 weeks in advance and before rent already paid expired; b. Failed to keep proper business records; c. Interfering with the privacy of the tenant amounting to harassment; d. Failed to meet maintenance, healthy homes and health and safety obligations; e. Acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages where appropriate. The burden of proof and evidence
A party who brings a claim to the Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered where it applies to this application. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears
The tenant claims that the rent arrears ledgers produced by the landlord do not show all rent payments that she made. She says that the landlord has credited rent payments meant for the residential tenancy to the commercial lease.
The landlord provided me with the rent ledgers for both the commercial lease and the residential tenancy. The landlord also produced a print out of all deposits made into their bank account by the tenants (whether for the commercial lease or the tenancy).
The Tribunal in other proceedings regarding the landlord and the tenant for this property sealed a mediated order on the 13th of January 2023 for rent arrears owed of $4200.00 as at that date 1 . The tenants dispute that they owed this amount to that date, but as this is the subject of an existing order, I cannot allow re-litigation of that order. If the parties wish to litigate the amount that is owed to that date, then they will need to apply for a rehearing of order 4463703.
The tenant got into financial difficulty in September 2024 and then sent the landlord an email regarding the commercial lease. In that correspondence it set out a payment plan for the plastic house commercial lease. I note that the following payments which the tenant claimed were supposed to be for the residential property were clearly set out in that payment plan to be credited towards the commercial lease: Date of payment Amount Reference on deposit 8 September 2023$600Ref#onescrimgeour172glenbrook 13 September 2023 $200Ref#one.2scrimgeour172glenbrook 26 September 2023 $350Ref#one.dscrimgeour172glenbrook 26 September 2023 $280Ref#one.cscrimgeour172glenbrook 11 October 2023 $350[redacted]scrimgeour172glenbrook 11 October 2023 $200[redacted]scrimgeour172glenbrook 1 TT 4463703
The tenants had used the above references consistently when referring to the commercial lease. This can be contrasted with the rent payments for the residential tenancy which they always put the word house or residential in the reference. The tenant’s reference was a clear indication to the landlord as to what the payment was for; house or commercial lease.
The tenant says that the landlord has credited an amount of $50 paid on the 7 September to the commercial lease rather than the residential tenancy. I am satisfied that the landlord has incorrectly attributed that amount to the commercial tenancy, when it should have gone to the residential tenancy. This is because the reference says 172glenbrookscrimhouse172glenbrook. I have therefore provided for this rent credit when awarding rent arrears.
The tenant disputed the amount of $910.00 which the landlord had credited to the commercial rent ledger on the 4 October. This is normally an amount that was paid for the residential tenancy, but I note that the reference on the deposit is Ref#one.dscrimgeour172glenbrook. That is the same reference the tenants use when paying for the commercial lease and therefore it was correctly deposited to the commercial lease.
The landlord gave me a rent summary showing that the tenants were $6720 in arrears as at the date the tenancy ended. I have deducted $50 from that amount meaning that the rent arrears total $6670.00. The landlord has proven that the tenants owed rent of $6670.00 at the date of termination. The tenant’s claims. The claims for requirement of rent in advance and the failure of the landlord to keep proper records.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not keep proper records of the rent which lead to the Tribunal ordering the tenant to pay $4200.00 in rent arrears. The tenant says in her submissions: On 9 January 2023, the agent produced a ledger that showed $4,200 in rent arrears as well as alleging that rent arrears are an ongoing issue. The tenant was ordered to pay an extra $50 per week, bringing the total payable amount to $910 per week in a mediator’s order, annexed “C”.
As mentioned above the difficulty with this claim is that it relates to an order that has already being made. I cannot look past that order. If the tenant’s claim that there is an issue with the order or the Tribunal’s processes in making that order then they need to file a rehearing application for TT 4463703. I observe that mediated orders are made by agreement between the parties, so if the tenant files a rehearing, then they would need to show that Ms Scrimgeour did not agree to this amount and that the order is wrong, or that the correct process was not followed.
As the mediated order is in place, then I cannot make any order which is contrary to it. The tenant’s claim for failure to keep proper records and requiring rent more than two weeks in advance (both of which stem from the mediated order) are therefore not proven and dismissed. Failure to maintain.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain numerous items in the property including the dishwasher, oven, sink and rangehood.
The chattels included in the tenancy agreement were: Fixed floor coverings, Curtains, Wastemaster, Garage door opener, Light fittings, Drapes, TV aerial, Stove, Rangehood, Blinds, Alarm, Heat Pump, Heated towel rail
The tenant submits that the oven, dishwasher and the rangehood have not worked through the tenancy and that heatpump was not provided.
The tenants say in their submissions: Despite requests sent to the agent to repair or replace these, they have remained in disrepair since 2022, resulting in the tenant issuing a 14-day notice to the agent on 27 November 2023, annexed “H”. Even after providing that 14-day notice, repairs were not completed within the given period, resulting in the tenant being deprived of the use of the chattels for 19 months. The tenant mentioned the items needing repair in correspondence with the agent and the tribunal regarding the current proceedings, annexed “I”. In late December, the agent replaced the oven and dishwasher however, the range hood is still not functional, so it does not meet the Healthy Homes standards. The tenancy agreement includes a provision for a heat pump, which has not yet been provided. The oven
In an email of the 2 June 2022 the tenant listed a number of issues with the property these included the oven the tenant said: Kitchen Oven - Oven door does not close which affects the operation of the oven and we are unable to cook as it cannot get to desired cooking temp and also buttons pushed in which we are unable to use.
On the 7 June the tenant followed up with the landlord who said that he had made work orders for someone to attend.
On the 20 June 2022 the tenant followed up with the landlord regarding the list of outstanding issues including the oven she said: “Electrician has advised the oven is too broken and will need replacing.”
The landlord says that he thought that the work was being done to the oven, but in November the tenant told him again the oven was still not working. He then asked [appliance company] to get a new oven. The landlord says that the tenant did not allow [appliance company] to come to check the dishwasher and the oven but there is no evidence that supports that. [Appliance company] says that they tried to get hold of the tenant, but that they did not get a response, but there was no follow up by the landlord. The tenant issued a 14 day notice in November 2023 and the landlord replaced the oven on the 15 December 2023.
I am satisfied that landlord failed to maintain and repair the oven. The landlord had an obligation when its electrician reported that the oven needed further repair/ replacement in June 2022 to attend to those repairs. When a tenant brings an issue to the landlord’s attention then the landlord has the responsibility to repair it. It is not an excuse that the tenant has not continually chased the landlord up. However, a tenant who complains of a defect should mitigate their loss by calling back tradesperson and facilitate the repairs by making the property available during reasonable hours for the repair to take place.
The tenant says that she was unable to cook in the stove from June 2022 to December 2023. I award the tenant $15 per week from 20 June 2022 to 15 December 2023 in compensation for this breach total of $1165.71. This recognises that the tenants were unable to cook in the oven without it losing temperature or not at all. This was annoying and limiting for them. The tenants are busy parents to their [redacted] and caregiver to a sick relative it was important that they had the means of cooking. The rangehood
The rangehood extraction unit was removed from the premises by the Electrician on 14th June 2022 after the tenant complained of the noise. The landlord says that he thought that the extraction fan was working.
I am satisfied that that rangehood was not working over this time and award the tenant $5.00 per week for the time that the range hood was removed which equal $442.86. The dishwasher
The dishwasher was leaking at the beginning of the tenancy. In the tenant’s email of the June 2022 the tenant noted the issues with the dishwasher.
The landlord’s plumber recommended replacement of the dishwasher on the 21 June 2022. The dishwasher was not replaced, and the tenant was unable to use if for the duration of the tenancy. I award the tenant $10 per week from June 2022 to the end of the tenancy = $885.71. As noted above the tenants lived in the property with their [redacted] and their sick relative. The tenant says that she was busy, and it was important to try and wash the dishes in a hygienic way especially given the sick relative’s medical conditions. The heat pump.
The tenant says that her tenancy agreement included a heat pump, but there was no heat pump installed at the premises. Having heard the evidence I consider that this was a mistake in the agreement. Both parties knew that there was no heat pump in the property and there is no evidence of discussions between the landlord and the tenant, before the rent arrears dispute arose in September 2023 regarding the heat pump. To award compensation for the lack of chattel that was mistakenly included in the agreement, would be a windfall for the tenant, and therefore I decline to grant any compensation.
I also note that the property had a working log burner in the main living area, that when working appeared to adequately heat the home to the Healthy Homes Standards. The Chimney.
The tenant says that the landlord has not correctly serviced the log burner by having the chimney swept. The tenant asked for the chimney to be serviced.
The landlord did not have the chimney serviced in 2023.
It is recommended that chimneys are annually serviced to ensure that they are safe and have no defects or build up of soot or debris. Some insurance policies require chimney’s to be serviced annually.
Whilst the landlord did not have the chimney serviced in 2023, and that this is a technical breach of the failure to maintain provisions, I do not award any compensation for this breach because I do consider it unlikely that the tenant did not use the fire because she did not complain to the landlord about this problem and there is no record of her confirming that she did not use the fire. Drinking water.
The tenant also claimed that there were issues with the potability of the drinking water. Early on in the tenancy the tenant claimed the water tank needed cleaning and smelled.
In the tenant’s submissions of 5 th February 2024, the tenant says: The tap water in the property is not safe for consumption and may not be suitable for bathing due to its questionable quality. The premises currently lack water a filtration system which breaches the requirement to ensure adequate means of water collection and storage to enable consumption at the premises.
As the tenant has not completed any tests that show that the water quality was not potable and the landlord says that water filters have been installed. I am not satisfied that there has been any breach of the landlord’s obligations. The Sewage System
The tenants also say in their submissions of the 5 February 2024. The septic system is blocked as water is accumulating in the sinks instead of draining freely. The sewage is overflowing onto the lawn, producing an unpleasant odour, and restricting the tenant's use of the property due to the location of the septic tank. This requires urgent attention as it poses a serious health hazard, but the agent has failed to take any action.
The landlord disputes that the septic tanks were overflowing. When the tenant complained of the problem the landlord had a plumber come out and investigate the issue.
The property has a two-tank bio system. The first tank acts like a holding cell, and then the waste is pumped into the second tank. There is an alarm system in the tenant’s garage that should alarm if there is an issue with the pump or if the tanks become too full.
The tenants say that the alarm did not go off and they were never told how to operate the alarm.
Whilst I am satisfied that there was a likely a problem with the sewage system, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to address the problems in a timely manner. The landlord provided evidence that they sent out proper tradespeople to identify issues and deal with those issues with the septic tank system. Exemplary damages for breaches of Failure to maintain.
I have found that the landlord beached its obligations in respect of the s45(1)(b)by failing to maintain the dishwasher, rangehood and oven. Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 (see s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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.
Exemplary damages are in addition to compensation.
I consider that the landlord has acted intentionally in all these breaches. The tenant brought the landlord’s attention to all the breaches in writing and has tried to work with the landlord. The breaches remained outstanding for almost all of the tenancy and the landlord did not demonstrate any urgency in dealing with the oven, rangehood and dishwasher.
I award the tenant $1000.00 in exemplary damages for this breach. This amount is in addition to the compensation awarded, which has taken into account the effect on the tenant. This amount reflects the public interest, that tenants receive properties and chattels in good working order and that if they are paying rent for those chattels then they are available to them. The amount awarded is to act as a deterrent to landlords as well. Landlords and in particular property managers should have systems in place to ensure that items like rangehoods, ovens and dishwashers are repaired/ replaced if they are not working and ensure that the property is regularly maintained for annual maintenance items such as chimney sweeping.
I record that as I have made an award for the rangehood for a breach of s45(1)(b) I have not considered a further breach of the Healthy Homes Standards as to do so would be to censure the landlord twice for the same issue. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
The tenant claims that three incidents when she says that her quiet enjoyment was breached: a) In a dispute over the water rates that should be paid, the landlord told the bore owner that the tenant was in rent arrears and that she was being taken to the Tribunal. b) That the landlord allowed people onto the property to look at the glasshouses without properly supervising them, which meant that potential lessees came onto the tenant’s property. c) That on Sunday 11 February the landlord sent a man called Roger to their home, Roger came to the house yelling and banging on the doors and windows between 8 am and 8.30 am, waking up everyone in their house. The tenants had never met Roger, they had not been informed by Just Prestige Properties Limited that they had appointed Roger to undertake an inspection of the property, Roger would not show them any ID which would validate his association with the company, and he was not driving a car that had anything that identified him as being part of the landlord’s company. The tenants acknowledge that they had received an email from ‘Roger’ before the visit, but said that they paid no attention to it because it was not on any company letterhead and did not have anything such as an email address that associated him with the landlord. The tenants also say that they had been at the Tribunal with Mr Liu on the 5 February, and he had not mentioned to them that a person called Roger would do inspections or would be in contact with them. Roger said that he was there for an inspection and refused to leave. The tenants had to call the Police. Whilst on the phone to the Police, the Police asked to speak to Roger, when he spoke to them, they asked him to show ID, he again refused. The tenants say he threatened them. Their [relatives] were frightened by his behaviour.
Having heard all the evidence, I make the following determinations: a) The tenant has not satisfied me that the landlord told the neighbour and bore owner that the tenant was being taken to the Tribunal. The agent denies that she said this. In the absence of any corroborating evidence the tenant has been unable to meet the burden of proof. b) Whilst the people visiting the glasshouses who came onto the tenant’s property or looked into their property would have been annoying, I do not consider that the landlord intended for the people visiting the glasshouses to go onto the tenant’s residential property and therefore there is no breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. c) I am satisfied that the Roger’s visit to the property as instructed by the landlord was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and that was of such a magnitude / seriousness that it constituted harassment and was an unlawful act. I say this because I consider, having heard the evidence that on the balance of probabilities Roger was not there to conduct an inspection, he was there to annoy, trouble and distress the tenants. I say this because: • He went there on a Sunday early in the morning. • He had no previous connection to the tenants. • His conduct at the property was distressing, he would not properly introduce himself, he acknowledged that he banged loudly on windows and the door. • He would not leave even though the tenants had called the Police. • He says that he was there to do an inspection, but he had not given proper notice of an inspection.
I award the tenant $1200.00 for this breach. This amount takes into account the effect on the tenant and her [relatives] (it was a significant reason that the tenant gave notice), it was very distressing on her [relatives]- the tenant’s [relative] who is a [redacted] came to the hearing to give evidence and she told me that it was frightening and confronting for her, and she no longer felt safe in her home after the incident and asked [The tenant/s] to leave the property.
This award also takes into account the public interest, the landlord and the tenant were embroiled in a tenancy tribunal dispute at that time. The landlord should have been very careful about their interactions with the tenant. I was left with the impression that as the tenant was in rent arrears, the landlord wanted them out and took whatever action the landlord thought was needed including bullying and intimidating the tenant to make them leave. The amount awarded acts as a deterrent to other landlords, if the tenant is in arrears, landlords should let the Tribunal process run its course and not engage in bullying, and intimidating behaviour. Filing fee and name suppression.
As both parties have been both unsuccessful and partly successful in their claims then I do not award either of them the filing fee. I also do not grant name suppression but do suppress all references to the tenant’s [relatives] in the decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782340 — Rent arrears at 172 Glenbrook Road, Karaka, RD4, Pukekohe 2679

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782340 — Rent arrears at 172 Glenbrook Road, Karaka, RD4, Pukekohe 2679

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions