What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784960 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4784960?

Compensation: $2,025.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784960?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10459683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784960 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4784960?

Compensation: $2,025.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784960?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10459683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4784960 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4784960 — net $2,045.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation as detailed below	$2,025.00	Compensation as detailed below
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$2,045.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,045.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4784960 — net $2,045.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation as detailed below	$2,025.00	Compensation as detailed below
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$2,045.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,045.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 20 July 2018. It ended, by notice from the landlord, on 17 January 2019.
[The tenant/s] filed this application on 18 January 2024.
A Case Conference hearing was held by phone on 8 March 2024.
A full day hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 15 May 2024. [The tenant/s], Mr & Mrs Caskie (Flat Planet Holdings Ltd, the owner of the property), and Ms Johnson and Ms Peterson (representing Inspire Property Management) participated in the hearing.
[The tenant/s] property manager during the tenancy was Ms Rodgers. Ms Rodgers left Inspire Property Management several years ago. Ms Rodgers did not give evidence at the hearing.
[The tenant/s] application seeks compensation and exemplary damages. Neither a landlord nor a tenant may bring a claim for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act 1 . That timeframe has well and truly passed. The only type of damages that [The tenant/s] can recover is compensation, not exemplary damages.
[The tenant/s] claim is set out in her document entitled “Issues that occurred throughout my tenancy”. That document formed the basis of the oral arguments at the 15 May hearing, and this decision follows the general structure of that document. Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 2 .
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The premises were very unclean and untidy at the beginning of her tenancy. b. Ms Rodgers told her that the landlord could bring in a professional cleaner, or she ([The tenant/s]) could do the cleaning herself, and the landlord would compensate her by way of a two-week rent credit. c. She decided to do the cleaning herself. d. Inspire Property Management never gave her the two-week rent credit.
Ms Johnson and Ms Peterson said that there is no written record of that agreement in Inspire’s records. Mr & Mrs Caskie said that they have no recollection of any such agreement.
I was provided with copies of the messages exchanged between [The tenant/s] and Ms Rodgers during the tenancy. In some of those messages [The tenant/s] raises this issue, and Ms Rodgers denies that there was any such agreement.
[The tenant/s] provided 8 photographs in support of this part of her claim about the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Most are close-up 1 Section 109(2) RTA 2 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) photographs showing the inside of cupboards or drawers in the kitchen. The photographs show some dirt and debris, including mouse droppings.
Ms Johnson and Ms Peterson provided a copy of the entry inspection report including photographs. The photographs are small and of relatively low quality / resolution. The photographs show that the furnishings and fittings in the property were aged, but not obviously unclean.
The standard of cleaning that the landlord must reach is “reasonable”, which is the same standard that the tenant must achieve at the end of the tenancy.
My findings are: a. The evidence provided to me does not prove, to the standard of “more likely than not”, that Ms Rodgers agreed to give [The tenant/s] a two-week rent credit for cleaning. b. The photographs provided show that a few small parts of the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy. No more than an hour of cleaning would be required to remedy those areas.
I address the issue of compensation for all of the proven parts of [The tenant/s] claim below. Oven
[The tenant/s] submitted that the oven did not work when she moved in, and the rangehood filters were very dirty.
She notified Ms Rodgers about the oven on 30 July 2018.
Ms Rodgers came to the property on 3 August 2018 to check the oven. She could not get it to work.
On 23 August, [The tenant/s] issued a breach notice in respect of a number of issues, including the oven.
On 25 August the owners came to the property. They discovered that the switch for the oven in the fuse box had tripped. When they turned it back on, the oven worked.
Ms Rodgers replaced the rangehood filters on 20 October 2018.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises 3 .
Although the problem with the oven was simple to fix, it is a fact that [The tenant/s] was unable to use the oven for the first four weeks of her tenancy. 3 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
An oven is an important amenity, and it is appropriate to make an award of compensation for loss of amenity.
The rangehood filters were unpleasant but functional. In response to [The tenant/s] complaint about the filters, the landlord took the appropriate step of arranging for the replacement of them. The replacement took longer than was hoped (Ms Peterson and Ms Jonson explained the reasons for this at the hearing), but the issue is relatively minor and the impact on [The tenant/s] was minimal. There is no basis for an award of compensation for loss of amenity. Carpets / dampness / drainage
[The tenant/s] submitted that the carpets were “dirty throughout the house” at the beginning of the tenancy.
She informed Ms Rodgers, who agreed to bring in a professional carpet cleaner.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the carpets were also noticeably wet. The carpet cleaner also noticed this when he came to do the job. He had a moisture meter, which he placed on the carpet. The reading was 95.3%. [The tenant/s] provided a photograph of this.
[The tenant/s] submitted that there was also mould throughout the house when the tenancy began, and that was part of the reason why she needed to clean the premises. The landlords disputed this.
[The tenant/s] formed the view that the property had a drainage problem. The property is below the level of the road, and it receives stormwater runoff from the road and from another property above it. [The tenant/s] submitted that the stormwater ran underneath the house and pooled there.
The landlord arranged for some drainage work to be done in October 2018. Mr & Mrs Caskie said that they did not believe that the wet carpet issue was related to a drainage problem, and they did not believe that the property had a drainage problem generally, but in response to the tenants concerns they arranged for some relatively minor work to be done to assist with diverting water away from the house.
[The tenant/s] said that after this work was done the carpet dried out and it remained dry until the end of her tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Caskie said that several years after [The tenant/s] tenancy they discovered a roof leak that allowed water to leak into the living room in certain weather conditions.
[The tenant/s] provided a video recording showing part of the outside of the property during very heavy rain. In the video, the lawn is flooded. Water can be seen running in a shallow channel in between the house and an (empty) garden bed, then into a hole in the wall cladding.
It is unclear when the video was recorded. Mr & Mrs Caskie submitted that it could have been around the time that the drainage work was done, because a garden bed was cleared as part of that work.
My findings are: a. [The tenant/s] photograph shows that at least part of the carpet was wet when her tenancy began. b. The healthy homes standard for drainage (properties must have efficient drainage for the removal of stormwater, surface water, and ground water) did not apply to this tenancy. In any event [The tenant/s] video, on its own, would not establish that the drainage for the property is inadequate. This is a low-lying property that receives stormwater from higher properties and the road. In torrential rain, it is inevitable that stormwater will pool to some extent on the lawn. The fact that some of that water goes underneath the house is not problematic as long as the water does not pool there. [The tenant/s] video does not show that water pooled underneath the house. c. It is unclear whether there is any link between the wet carpet and the alleged drainage problem. I note [The tenant/s] statement that the carpet dried out and the problem did not recur after the drainage work in October 2018. However, if the carpet was wet from stormwater coming from underneath / around the house, then there must have been some defect in the house (such as a crack in the exterior cladding) that was allowing the water in. If that was the case, then there would be other signs of water damage to the building besides wet carpet, such as rotting timber framing, water marks on the walls, etc. There is no evidence of any such damage in this instance. d. Irrespective of the cause of the problem, part of the carpet was very wet at the start of this tenancy. That would have contributed to a damp living environment, and it would have made it more difficult for [The tenant/s] to keep the premises dry and warm. Tenants should reasonably expect that the inside of the premises will be dry. There are grounds for an award of compensation for loss of amenity. e. The evidence is unclear about how much of the carpet was wet. [The tenant/s] submitted that the premises were mouldy at the beginning of her tenancy, but (as discussed in more detail below) there is very little evidence about this. [The tenant/s] provided photographs showing quite significant amounts of condensation on the windows. There is a wood burner at the premises. [The tenant/s] had difficulties purchasing sufficient dry wood, but no blame for that can fall to the landlord. The property also has a central heating system. [The tenant/s] did not use the central heating system for a while, due to concerns about mould in the vents of the system. This issue is discussed in more detail below.
Compensation for the proven parts of [The tenant/s] claim is addressed below. Mould
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. There was mould “scattered around the house and in the sunroom”. b. There was mould in the vents of the central heating system. c. A window in the master bedroom had a locked security mesh on it, which she could not remove in order to clean mould from the window frame.
[The tenant/s] provided several photographs of windowsills and the bottom of venetian blinds, which show a small amount of dark marks on them.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs of the central heating vents with the plastic ‘grilles’ removed. The photographs show that the vents and grilles are discoloured.
It is unclear whether the marks on the windowsills and vents is mould or simply dirt. The vents sit on the floor and would be prone to collecting dirt and dust.
Even if it was proven that the visible dark marks are mould, the amount is minimal.
I understand why [The tenant/s] was particularly concerned about mould, due to her daughter’s serious health condition. However, a tenant having a particular vulnerability does not mean that the landlord has a higher legal duty. Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The standard required is “reasonable”, not “perfect”.
The evidence provided does not show that the premises had a significant mould problem, and there is no reasonable basis for an award of compensation. No curtains
The property had blinds on the windows.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the venetian blinds were “brittle and disintegrating”. Other fabric blinds were marked / stained at the bottom ([The tenant/s] submitted that the marks were mould).
[The tenant/s] asked Ms Rodgers to replace the blinds with curtains, which Ms Rodgers declined. [The tenant/s] was in the process of seeking financial assistance to replace the blinds at her own cost, but she cancelled this when she became aware that the landlord was going to end her tenancy.
Landlords have a duty to provide window coverings 4 , but there is no specific requirement that the coverings must be curtains and not blinds. Ms Rodgers’ photographs show some relatively minor dark marks on the bottom of some of the blinds, which may or may not be mould, but the evidence provided does not support her allegation that the blinds were brittle and disintegrating.
There is no proven breach of the landlord’s legal duty. Hole in laundry cupboard
At the back of the laundry cupboard there are two rectangular pieces of the back wall missing. These sections have been cut out to accommodate the pipes.
[The tenant/s] submitted that these gaps contributed to the rodent problem at the property.
Landlords and tenants have a shared responsibility to mitigate rats and mice.
When [The tenant/s] raised this issue, Ms Rodgers offered to provide her with traps, which [The tenant/s] declined (she had traps of her own).
Eliminating unnecessary gaps / holes is part of minimising the effect of rats and mice. I accept that the gaps in the laundry cupboard were unnecessary – the gaps are much bigger than is necessary for the pipes.
This is a problem that the landlord should have attended to, but it is relatively minor.
Compensation for the proven parts of [The tenant/s] claim is addressed below. Skylight in “fourth bedroom”
There is a room in the middle of the house that does not have windows.
[The tenant/s] said that she was told that the landlord was going to put a skylight in this room.
That statement is supported by the tenancy agreement. The property inspection report attached to the agreement includes a comment (made by Ms Rodgers) “awaiting skylight”.
The first record of Ms Rodgers putting in a work order for the skylight is in November 2018. The request was approved quickly by the owner. [The tenant/s] submitted that the skylight was not fitted before the end of her tenancy in January 2019. 4 Case
This is not a maintenance issue – it is an upgrade / improvement to the property.
However, it is clear that the skylight was discussed at the start of the tenancy, and that [The tenant/s] was told that a skylight would be put in. Ms Rodgers’ “awaiting skylight” comment on the tenancy agreement certainly reinforced that expectation.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the absence of a skylight rendered this room “unusable” as a fourth bedroom.
Mr & Mrs Caskie submitted that the house was rented as a three-bedroom, not a four-bedroom home. They submitted that this room was really only suitable for storage and it could still be used for that purpose without a skylight.
It is not proven that the property was advertised as a four-bedroom home.
[The tenant/s] entered into the agreement on the reasonable understanding that a skylight would be put into this room at the beginning, or near to the beginning, of her tenancy. That was part of the ‘deal’ that she accepted when she agreed to rent the property.
She is entitled to compensation on the grounds that she did not receive what she bargained for.
Compensation for the proven parts of [The tenant/s] claim is addressed below. Use of the garage
The property has a separate 2-bay garage. There are two dwellings on the section – the house that [The tenant/s] rented and a smaller ‘cottage’, which was also rented.
The previous tenant did not need all of the garage, and they had an arrangement with the cottage tenants that the cottage tenants could ‘rent’ part of the garage for their belongings.
Ms Rodgers told [The tenant/s] about this arrangement when she viewed the property, and told her that she could continue with the same arrangement, or she could end it if she needed to use all of the garage. [The tenant/s] told Ms Rodgers that she needed all of the garage.
[The tenant/s] submitted that when she moved in: a. Some of the neighbour’s belongings were still in the garage. b. The locks on the garage had not been changed. [The tenant/s] said that Ms Rodgers told her that she would change the locks before her tenancy began, because the neighbour had a key to the garage. c. The lock on one of the roller doors was broken.
On 30 August 2018, a visitor to the neighbour’s property accidentally drove into one of the roller doors causing significant damage to it. The owners made an insurance claim. The door was replaced in December 2018. [The tenant/s] tenancy ended in January 2019.
The landlords disputed [The tenant/s] statement that one of the roller doors was broken at the beginning of the tenancy. They did not know whether the other tenants had a key for the garage.
[The tenant/s] handwritten notes on the property inspection report attached to the tenancy agreement state: “garage – automatic door is broken, no remote and garage needs to be lockable”. Those notes are dated 13 September 2018.
Inspire’s entry inspection report shows a small collection of items in one corner of the garage and a chest freezer (unplugged) in the middle of the garage. The freezer is missing in the next inspection (October 2018), but the other items in the corner are still there.
It is clear enough that [The tenant/s] use of the garage was comprised during her tenancy. Her expectation that Inspire would change the locks on the garage if the other neighbours previously had a key was reasonable. The presence of a small number of items belonging to the neighbours did not prevent her from using the garage, but it created uncertainty about whether the neighbours still expected to have access. There is limited and conflicting evidence about whether one of the roller doors was broken at the start of the tenancy.
Even if none of those problems existed, the garage was rendered unusable after the accident in late August, a month after the start of [The tenant/s] tenancy. It remained unusable until a few weeks before the end of the tenancy.
The lack of a garage meant that [The tenant/s] belongings remained in a paid storage unit.
[The tenant/s] paid rent for a property that included a two-bay garage. Although the damage to the garage door was beyond the landlords’ control, and the repairs were done as promptly as possible, [The tenant/s] is entitled to loss of amenity compensation on the grounds that she did not have the use of the garage for a portion of her tenancy.
Compensation for the proven parts of [The tenant/s] claim is addressed below. Flickering lights in the kitchen
[The tenant/s] submitted that the lights in the kitchen flickered from the beginning of the tenancy.
She informed Ms Rodgers. Ms Rodgers organised an electrician, but then cancelled that booking when [The tenant/s] told her that the flickering had stopped.
The flickering returned, and it remained an intermittent problem throughout the tenancy. It is one of the issues listed in the tenant’s breach notice.
The landlords submitted that they had new lighting installed when they purchased the property. Sometime after [The tenant/s] tenancy, an electrician attended and found that there was a fault in the switch in the kitchen.
[The tenant/s] was concerned that the flickering light could be due to rodent damage, which was a reasonable concern given her problems with rats and mice at the property. [The tenant/s] described the flickering light as “a huge fire hazard and most definitely a safety concern”.
Fortunately, the issue turned out to be less serious. I acknowledge that it caused [The tenant/s] some concern, and it was not addressed promptly during [The tenant/s] tenancy. However, it was an intermittent fault, and it was reasonable for Ms Rodgers to cancel the electrician on advice that the fault appeared to have stopped.
Ultimately this is a relatively minor issue and, although it could have been dealt with more promptly, it does not warrant an award of compensation. Gas leak
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. On or around 23 October 2018, North Power workers who were carrying out work on a neighbouring property informed [The tenant/s] that they could smell gas on her property. The workers tried to find the source of the leak but were unable to. b. [The tenant/s] notified Ms Rodgers. Ms Rodgers was due to do an inspection that day. [The tenant/s] submitted that Ms Rodgers also noticed the smell when she did the inspection. c. There is no evidence of Inspire taking any further steps. d. On 23 November, [The tenant/s] sent an email following up on this issue. It appears that Ms Rodgers did not reply. e. [The tenant/s] sent another follow up email on 29 November. f. Ms Rodgers replied on 10 December stating that she had contacted [gas company] to look into the issue. g. [Gas company] could not identify any specific leaks. [The tenant/s] submitted that the gas smell eventually dissipated.
The apparent lack of action by Inspire from 23 October until 10 December is unacceptable given the nature of the issue.
Compensation for the proven parts of [The tenant/s] claim is addressed below. Toilet
[The tenant/s] raised two issues: a. The flush button was jammed, and the toilet ran. This problem persisted from the beginning of the tenancy until 5 November 2018. b. On the afternoon of Friday 2 November 2018, the toilet backed up and overflowed. [The tenant/s] attempted to contact Ms Rodgers but could not reach her by phone. She left voice messages and sent an email. Ms Rodgers contacted [The tenant/s] on Monday morning. A plumber attended that afternoon and unblocked the toilet. The plumber also fixed the jammed flush button at that time.
The timing of the overflow incident was unfortunate, but tenants should reasonably expect to be able to contact their property managers after hours in emergency situations. [The tenant/s] was forced to stay with her mother for the weekend, who lived an hour’s drive away.
This issue was not dealt with acceptably promptly and it is appropriate to make an award of compensation. Long term tenancy
[The tenant/s] submitted that she accepted the tenancy on the understanding that it was going to be long term. [The tenant/s] recalled that Ms Rodgers told there was a possibility of a rent-to-buy agreement with the owners.
The tenancy agreement was for a six-month fixed term tenancy beginning on 20 July 2018.
On 10 December 2018 the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy at the expiry of the fixed term.
Mr & Mrs Caskie agree that, from their perspective, they wanted a long term tenancy with [The tenant/s], because their preference is always for long term tenancies if possible.
They explained that they terminated the tenancy because of complaints of anti-social behaviour, allegedly relating to [The tenant/s] boarder but also [The tenant/s] herself. I understand that the complaints were about behaviour / language directed to Ms Rodgers and also to the neighbour.
It does not appear that the landlords ever gave [The tenant/s] the opportunity to respond to any of these allegations, and the evidence about the alleged anti- social behaviour is non-existent.
However, the law at the time was that either the landlord or the tenant could give notice to end a fixed term tenancy at the expiry of the fixed term. The landlord or tenant were not required to give a reason, and the Tribunal could only set aside a termination notice, or award exemplary damages if it found that the notice was retaliatory or discriminatory. As noted above, claims for exemplary damages must be brought within 12 months of the commission of the unlawful act.
Therefore I find that: a. This was a fixed term tenancy of six months. b. Either the landlord or the tenant could give notice to end the tenancy at the expiry of the fixed term. c. The landlord issued a formally valid notice to end the tenancy. d. I am unable to consider whether the termination may have been retaliatory or discriminatory.
There is no basis for an award of damages. Boundaries of section, and condition of section and raised garden at beginning of tenancy
There is a metalled area between the two dwellings that has several raised gardens in it.
[The tenant/s] said that at the beginning of the tenancy she told Ms Rodgers that she would like to make use of that area to establish a play space for her daughter. Ms Rodgers told her that was ok.
The raised gardens were overgrown when she moved in.
She was then told that she could not have the use of that space.
Mr & Mrs Caskie submitted that it was always the case that part of this area belonged to the cottage tenants and those tenants could park their vehicles there.
This part of [The tenant/s] claim turns on the question of what Ms Rodgers said to her about this area before the tenancy began. That conversation happened almost seven years ago. I cannot hear from Ms Rodgers. [The tenant/s] has the burden of proof. It would be unjust to impose an evidential disadvantage on the landlord because of the long delay in the tenant filing this application.
My finding is that it is not proven that Ms Rodgers made a verbal promise that the area between the two dwellings would be available for [The tenant/s].
[The tenant/s] photographs show that the raised beds that are inside her (undisputed) part of the section were in a somewhat overgrown condition at the start of her tenancy. It is appropriate to make a small award of compensation for this. Property inspection report, bond form
[The tenant/s] completed the property inspection report on the tenancy agreement, making some detailed notes about the condition of the premises from her perspective.
[The tenant/s] put the report in to the letterbox and informed Ms Rodgers about it but Ms Rodgers (according to [The tenant/s]) refused to take it.
[The tenant/s] did not pay the last week of rent ($500.00). [The tenant/s] did this because she considered that she was owed two weeks’ rent for cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy (as discussed above). Ms Rodgers treated this short payment as rent arrears.
Ms Rodgers did not bring the bond form to the final inspection. She met with [The tenant/s] several days after the tenancy ended. [The tenant/s] attempted to explain why she felt entitled to withhold the last week of rent. Ms Rodgers disagreed and left.
I acknowledge that these incidents caused [The tenant/s] frustration and are part of what she considers to be Ms Rodgers’ “unprofessional” management of the tenancy.
However, adults (including landlords and tenants) are entitled to disagree. It would have been sensible for Ms Rodgers to accept, for her records, the property inspection report that [The tenant/s] completed, but she was not obliged to agree with [The tenant/s] notation.
Ms Rodgers was also entitled to take a different view than [The tenant/s] about cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy. Sometimes there are disputes between landlords and tenants about such matters. Either party can bring an application to the Tenancy Tribunal to have the dispute determined.
There is no basis for an award of compensation under this heading. Early release from tenancy
Early in the tenancy [The tenant/s] asked Ms Roger whether she could be released from the fixed term tenancy. Ms Roger agreed that [The tenant/s] could end the tenancy by giving 21-days’ notice.
[The tenant/s] decided not to give notice at that time.
After the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy, [The tenant/s] was able to find another property to move into approximately two weeks before the end of the tenancy. She asked whether she could be released from the balance of the tenancy. Ms Rodgers declined this request.
This was a fixed term tenancy. Fixed term tenancies cannot be ended by notice.
The landlord agreed to accept a 21-day notice to end the tenancy. That was a compromise by the landlord. The landlord never agreed to a lesser notice period, or to no notice period at all.
Ms Rodgers was entitled to decline the request for [The tenant/s] to be released from the last two weeks of the tenancy.
There was no breach of a legal duty by the landlord, and no basis for an award of damages under this heading. Neighbours
[The tenant/s] experienced difficulties with the cottage tenants during her tenancy. She was concerned about drug activity at that property. She submitted that: a. The neighbours had two dogs during her tenancy, despite not being permitted dogs under the terms of their tenancy agreement. [The tenant/s] had to negotiate to get permission for her dog, which was a certified support dog for her daughter. The presence of the neighbour’s dogs meant that she was uneasy about letting her dog or her daughter play outside. b. The neighbours and their visitors sped down the shared driveway. That space was often used by neighbourhood children. The neighbours and their visitors would yell at children on the driveway. c. Several fishing rods were stolen from her covered porch area. Her friend later found those fishing rods listed for sale on Facebook marketplace.
Landlords have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that none of their other tenants interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises 5 .
Mr & Mrs Caskie said that they were aware that the neighbours had dogs, in breach of their tenancy agreement. They were not aware that the dogs were causing any problems for [The tenant/s]. They were not aware of the issues with the driveway or the stolen fishing rods.
[The tenant/s] did not raise concerns about these issues during her tenancy. She had legitimate reasons for this at the time.
I understand [The tenant/s] reluctance to raise these concerns when she was still in the property. However, a landlord can only be obliged to take reasonable 5 Section 45(1)(e) RTA steps once they become aware that their tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy has been interfered with.
In this instance the landlords did not breach their legal duty. They were not aware of the interference with [The tenant/s] peace, comfort, and privacy and so the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent that interference was not triggered. Meth minder
There was a ‘meth minder’ alarm at the property.
[The tenant/s] daughter has serious health issues and one of [The tenant/s] requirements for the property was that it was completely free from methamphetamine contamination.
The meth minder alarm went off on or around 21 October 2018.
Ms Rodgers arranged for methamphetamine testing.
On 10 November, [The tenant/s] sent Ms Rodgers a message following up about the test results.
Ms Rodgers eventually replied on 30 November: I do apologise for the delay in getting back to you. I have been dealing with some personal things. Anyway the meth results were all A-okay as I knew they would be
[The tenant/s] was concerned that the alarm may have just been an opportunity to harass her. She was also frustrated by the delay in Ms Rodgers providing the results of the testing, in particular because of the risks for her daughter.
The relationship between [The tenant/s] and Ms Rodgers was strained, and I understand why the alarm going off for no reason would seem suspicious to [The tenant/s]. However, the suggestion that Ms Rodgers engineered / created a false alarm for the purpose of harassing [The tenant/s] seems improbable. It is not unknown for meth minder alarms to go off incorrectly.
At the time that this incident occurred there was no positive legal duty on landlords to provide tenants with the results of methamphetamine tests. That obligation came into force in a law change that took effect on 27 August 2019 6 . Landlords must now notify the tenant of the test results within 7 days of receipt.
Applying the law that was in effect in October / November 2018, there was no breach of the landlord’s legal duty in this instance and therefore no basis for an award of damages. 6 Section 48(3B) RTA Boarder
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. When she agreed to the tenancy she made it clear to Ms Rodgers that she could not afford the rent without having a boarder. b. She had boarders – an adult male and his son – from the beginning of her tenancy, and Ms Rodgers was aware of that. c. Ms Rodgers then denied giving permission, and attempted to “blackmail” her about the boarder, including giving her a breach notice about it.
Mr & Mrs Caskie submitted that they were not made aware of any request for a boarder. They said that they wouldn’t have had any concerns about another person living there – it is a big enough house – but they would have required that person to be on the tenancy agreement.
Ms Peterson and Ms Johnson submitted that the application made to Inspire only identified [The tenant/s] and her daughter as the occupants, and this is what is recorded in the tenancy agreement.
I was provided with a copy of an email from Ms Rodgers dated 17 September 2018 where Ms Rodgers denies that she ever gave permission for, or knew about, [The tenant/s] boarder.
The evidence available to me does not establish, to the standard of ‘more likely than not’ that the landlord consented to [The tenant/s] boarder. The landlord was entitled to consider that the presence of the boarder was a breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement, and was entitled to issue a breach notice on that basis. This is not harassment of [The tenant/s]. Visits by tradespeople and landlord
[The tenant/s] submitted that there were many attendances by tradespeople and by Ms Rodgers during her tenancy. She states: “it seems my landlords and property manager require me to stress and further suffer and compromise with out priorities and health having all these contractors through is further evidence”.
Landlords and their agents have the right to enter the premises in certain circumstances, including to carry out necessary repairs and to inspect the premises.
This is not a new house, and [The tenant/s] raised multiple maintenance issues during the tenancy. She was entitled to raise those issues. The landlord was then entitled (and indeed obliged) to take steps to repair them.
There is no evidence to indicate that any of the attendances by tradespeople or by Ms Rodgers were unlawful entries, or were illegitimate / unnecessary.
There is no basis for an award of damages under this heading. Compensation
As noted above, I am not able to make any awards of exemplary damages.
I am able to make an award of compensatory damages.
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] has proven her claim, and suffered a loss of amenity, in respect of the following issues: a. Oven not working from until 18 July until 25 August. b. Wet carpet at beginning of tenancy. c. Hole in laundry cupboard wall contributing to rodent problem. d. Skylight not installed in internal room. e. No use of garage for part of the tenancy. f. Possible gas leak not addressed promptly. g. Blocked toilet not addressed promptly.
Some of these issues are more significant than others. I will make a “global” award of compensation in respect of all of these issues rather than making individual awards. In doing so I note that [The tenant/s] paid a total of $13,000.00 in rent during her tenancy.
I also acknowledge the personal impact on [The tenant/s] of her experience of the tenancy. A monetary award cannot, and should not attempt to, address that impact.
I will award compensation of $1,950.00, which is 15% of the rent paid during the tenancy.
I am also satisfied that the premises did not meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy at the beginning of the tenancy, and I will award $50.00 for cleaning the interior (two hours’ labour at $25 per hour) and $25.00 for tidying up the raised gardens. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been successful in this application and I will also award her the filing fee of $20.44 7 . 7 Section 102(4) RTA
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that [The tenant/s] has been substantially successful in the proceedings 8 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784960 — Tenancy dispute

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784960 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions