What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4791269?

The tribunal order states: Shaoquing Liang must pay JI Hwang $940.29 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4791269?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $270.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $79.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4791269?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4791269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11060416-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4791269?

The tribunal order states: Shaoquing Liang must pay JI Hwang $940.29 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4791269?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $270.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $79.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4791269?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4791269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11060416-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Mountbatten Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4791269 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4791269 — net $940.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Towel rail compensation	$200.00		Towel rail compensation
Rubbish removal	$79.71		Rubbish removal
Exterior wall hole compensation	$50.00		Exterior wall hole compensation
Services compensation		$270.00	Services compensation
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$1,000.00	Harassment
Total award	$329.71	$1,270.00
Net award		$940.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$940.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4791269 — net $940.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Towel rail compensation	$200.00		Towel rail compensation
Rubbish removal	$79.71		Rubbish removal
Exterior wall hole compensation	$50.00		Exterior wall hole compensation
Services compensation		$270.00	Services compensation
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$1,000.00	Harassment
Total award	$329.71	$1,270.00
Net award		$940.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$940.29

Order

Shaoquing Liang must pay JI Hwang $940.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlords. There are numerous claims from both parties to consider. There are strong differences around what has happened.
Both parties appeared at the two hearings. The landlords Mr He and Ms Liang attended as did Mr Hwang the tenant. Mr He was supported by an interpreter provided by the Tribunal. DescriptionLandlordTenant Services compensation $270.00 Exemplary damages: Harassment $1,000.00 Towel rail compensation$200.00 Rubbish removal$79.71 Exterior wall hole compensation$50.00 Total award$329.71$1,270.00 Net award $940.29 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $940.29

BACKGROUND

There is no dispute between the parties that there was a tenancy, but there was no written tenancy agreement. The tenancy commenced on 3 November 2023.
It is relevant to note that the dwelling has two tenancies. The tenant rents the upstairs dwelling, and I understand that the landlord has formed a new tenancy dwelling in the downstairs area. That downstairs tenancy is separately rented.
It is relevant to note that the landlord lives next door to the tenancy, and I can see that has caused some of the conflict to arise.
This matter has previously been to the Tribunal, and the Tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal. Possession was ordered to return to the landlord on 28 January 2024. The Tribunal made various other orders at that time.
Both parties have subsequently filed further applications with the Tribunal, and those are the subject of this decision.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

TENANTS CLAIMS

I will consider the tenant’s claims in turn. Unlawful residential tenancy
The tenant states that he lived upstairs, and another tenant downstairs. The premises were not recorded as being properties ‘A’ or ‘B’, and the tenants downstairs were paying rent to the landlord. The Council came and advised it was an unlawful tenancy. The tenant says the landlord asked that he lie to the Council inspector and say he was a family member.
Mr Hwang says that the downstairs tenant used his power as there was no separate power meter, no separate bins, and the downstairs tenant was not a tenant appointed by him.
Mr Hwang says that the Council directed that changes be made to the tenancy.
The landlord says that what the tenant said was dishonest. The landlord states that the tenant had agreed when he moved in that he would be sharing the costs of the services with the person downstairs, and it was only after he moved in that any dispute over services arose.
The landlord considers that this matter should not be considered, because it was ‘resolved’ at the last hearing.
In conclusion, Mr Hwang states that unlawful residential premises were not claimed at the earlier hearing. Analysis
Mr Hwang states that he has been advised by the Council that the premises are unlawful, but he has not provided any documentary evidence of this.
Section 78A of the RTA gives the Tenancy Tribunal power to make a range of orders if the evidence establishes that the premises are or were at any material time “unlawful residential premises”. Unlawful residential premises are defined in that provision as: Residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but – (a) That cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes which that person is granted occupation), and (b) Where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c) has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Section 36 of the RTA states that the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for unlawful purposes.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA provides that the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety and any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
The public policy behind the introduction of section 78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were, for example, unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to the need to meet legal requirements to ensure their health and safe occupation by tenants. In moving that the bill relating to section 78A be read a first time in parliament, the Hon Dr Nick Smith stated: ...There have been examples around the country of garages or other properties that are being rented out that do not go anywhere near meeting the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act but where there are limitations on our new compliance teams being able to enforce them because of that jurisdiction issue. My view is that the amendments in this bill that make it plain that the tribunal has full jurisdiction over unlawful residential premises will strengthen the regulatory environment and ensure that those people who attempt to rent out such properties are held accountable. 1
The first step in considering a claim for unlawful residential premises, is to consider whether the tenancy could lawfully be occupied for residential purposes.
In this case I find the tenant has not established that his tenancy premises are unlawful residential premises. Having considered the photographs provided, those premises have all the appearance of a well-established residential dwelling. I have received no evidence to show that the property rented by the tenant, could not be lawfully used for residential purposes. 1 See also The Hon Phil Twyford: “This bill aims to strengthen the powers for prosecuting landlords who have rented out unsuitable accommodation, such as garages, warehouses, and industrial buildings. There was one very notable case—I think it was 61 Molesworth Street—where, at the time of the Wellington earthquakes, the ratbag owner of that building had rented out a lot of that commercial space to tenants. They were found to be living not only in kind of unsafe and unsuitable accommodation but— what the bill points out is that if people are not in premises that are consented for residential purposes, then landlords cannot be held to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.”
In my view, based on what the tenant has said, it may be that the downstairs tenancy could be unlawful, but that is not the premises before the Tribunal, it is the upstairs tenancy I must consider.
Finding as I do that the tenant has not proven his tenancy to be unlawful, this claim must be dismissed. Services
The tenant claims compensation of $270 for electricity and internet on the basis that he was paying for services used by the downstairs tenant. The tenant states that there is no check or sub-meter for the power, so he would be charged the full power charge.
The landlord states that the tenant had initially agreed that he would pay for the services used in the downstairs unit. The landlord states that she is willing to pay for these services if the bills are provided.
The landlord says that the tenant transferred the internet provider, and disputes that the downstairs tenant was provided the password to the internet, and the downstairs tenant used the landlord’s internet instead.
The landlord notes that the power bill was in the name of a different person. The tenant explained that because of issues he has had previously, the account was taken in the name of a friend with the friend’s permission.
The tenant states that the internet was used by the downstairs tenant. Analysis
There is a statutory presumption in the RTA, that tenants will only be liable for the outgoings (like power and internet) that are related to the tenant’s use of the premises only. That is found in section 39(3) which holds: The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
That statutory presumption would be against the tenant needing to provide and especially fund, power or internet for tenants in a different tenancy. I accept in this case, the tenant has funded power and internet for his neighbour.
While the landlord states that the internet password was not provided by the tenant to the downstairs tenant, they have provided no evidence of that.
The fact the tenant changed providers is not relevant, given the tenant was being charged for the utilities, he is entitled to decide which provider he uses.
Ultimately the tenant is seeking half of the power and internet charges, which seems fair and is ordered in full. Water
The tenant says that during the tenancy the water would not work, and he believed that the supply for the water would be turned off. Analysis
As I raised at the hearing today, I consider that the adjudicator in the previous hearing has considered and decided this claim. The tenant responded that this claim relates to the period between the earlier order, and possession returning to the landlord. In my view the principle of de minimus must apply. There are a very small number of days in question, and I cannot see any compelling reason to depart from the usual principle that once a matter has been decided by a court or Tribunal, that the result is binding and concludes the dispute. For that reason I dismiss this claim. Harassment
The tenant claims that he has been harassed by the landlord. The tenant described various things the landlord would do, that the tenant says was harassment. That included: a. The landlord taking photographs of his belongings. b. Advising neighbours that the tenant had burnt down a building and that there was a criminal. c. Videotaping the tenant when leaving the premises. d. Unnecessarily walking in front of the tenancy. e. Monitoring if the tenant was home or not. f. Filming through the tenant’s window at night with a light on the landlord’s camera.
Mr Hwang states that he was acquitted of a criminal charge well prior to this tenancy starting (around 2022), however, he confirmed that he has been previously convicted of arson, but even if there are articles online, that does not mean the landlord should spread that information around the neighbourhood.
Mr Hwang states that he feels unsafe at his house, and would need to check his cameras all the time, and he has needed counselling.
Mr Hwang also states the landlord removed documents from his house that were produced at the earlier Tribunal hearing about the alleged criminal offending.
Mr Hwang produced a range of photographs and videos, showing Mr He out the front of his tenancy, the landlord looking through his belongings inside the tenancy during an inspection, and photographing papers, and taking what Mr Hwang says are video recordings of him in the dwelling.
In response, the landlords state that there is no evidence that the neighbours were told anything adverse about the tenant, and in fact they deny having done so. Further, given they lived next door, they would routinely pass the tenancy premises. The landlords state that the photographs produced by the tenant show that the tenant was taking photographs of them, including putting up cameras and uploading those on the internet, including putting up vulgar titles when uploading those. The landlords state the tenant had stolen parcels sent for their daughter. In relation to some of the photographs provided by the tenant, they were taken in a public place. The landlords stated that they would park out the front of the tenancy, but it was a public (street) parking area.
The landlords dispute removing tenant belongings. Analysis
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined 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.
From these definitions, it seems that 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 (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) 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.”
Taking the above considerations into account, in my view landlords have harassed Mr Hwang. I take into account the landlords living next door, but I consider it more likely than not that some actions of the landlord were designed to upset Mr Hwang.
I do not accept the landlord’s statement that when alleged to be taking videos of the tenant, the landlord was ‘just using his phone’. I consider the images shown to the Tribunal likely reflect the landlord taking photographs or video recordings of the tenant, and the landlord has not identified a reasonable basis for doing that.
I am very concerned at the video recording taken by the tenant inside his home, where the landlord/property manager, can be seen going through documents of the tenant and taking photographs of those. That is very far from acceptable behaviour. I do not believe the landlord in saying that there was a legitimate basis for taking the photographs of the documents, because the original document belonged to the neighbour. I note there is also a video where the Police required that the photographs be deleted, it is plain that the Police were not persuaded that what the landlord did was reasonable. I am also minded that the video shows the Police instructing the property manager to delete the photographs, so it is concerning that the landlord wanted to produce the photograph at the hearing.
In my assessment, the landlord was seeking to cause distress to the tenant, which meets the definition of harassment, which is an unlawful act in the RTA. The Tribunal must therefore consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of section 38, is $3,000.00.
Taking the section 109 factors into consideration, I consider it very likely the landlord’s actions were intentional. The effect of those actions was to cause distress to the tenant, and I have no reason not to accept that it has caused the tenant to require counselling. There are strong interests for tenants not to be harassed by their landlords, and that is an interest for the public generally. I consider it would be just to order the payment of exemplary damages.
I consider an award at one-third of the maximum would be indicated, being $1,000.00, that would be commensurate with the landlord’s breach, and that is ordered.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Moving to the landlord’s claims now. Damage
The landlord states that when the premises were returned, there was extensive damage to the premises. The landlords state that they were not able to re-rent the premises immediately. Oven
The landlord states that the tenant has cut the power cable for the oven. A photograph was provided of the oven on the deck, with what I accept was a cut power cable.
The tenant states that the oven was causing fire risk and this was raised with the landlord, and it was assessed by James Cook as faulty, that assessment funded by the tenant. The tenant says he did not use the oven, it was on the deck at the end of the tenancy, having been removed by James Cook but covered to protect it. Mr Hwang states he did not cut the wire.
The tenant showed a video that he states was taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that the damage was reported to the Police, and they advised to go to the Tribunal.
The landlord says that if the tenant had paid for the assessment with James Cook he has provided no evidence of that. The landlord says that the oven is fine and is being used by the new tenant, presumably with a new power cable. Analysis
In this case there is no dispute that the tenant had the oven removed. But the tenant said he only did that because it was not working, and in fact it was James Cook that had removed it in order to assess it.
The issue for the landlord was particularly around the fact that the power cable had been cut. However this is a case where I have the tenant saying he did not cut the cable, and I also have the landlord saying they did not cut it either. On balance, I can see no reason to prefer the evidence from the tenant to the evidence of the landlord.
It is possible the tenant cut the cable to cause inconvenience and loss for the landlord, but it is equally possible that the landlord cut the cable to implicate and claim against the tenant. A third possibility is that the oven was removed by James Cook, and in the process they cut the cable.
Given I find the evidence is balanced, I find overall that the landlord has not proven this claim, so it must be dismissed. Dishwasher
The landlord states that the tenant had also removed the dishwasher that was also found on the deck with the wire cut.
The tenant said that the dishwasher did not work when the tenancy started and that he paid $230.00 for the repair of the unit from Fisher and Paykle, and showed the Tribunal a booking confirmation from Fisher and Paykle from November 2023 for the repair. The tenant said that it was the Fisher & Paykle serviceman who disconnected and removed the dishwasher. The tenant further says that he asked for a chattels list but the landlord would not provide it. The tenant confirmed the dishwasher was left outside.
The landlords consider the tenant has been dishonest about the dishwasher. The landlord disputes that they had told the tenant to take away the dishwasher. Analysis
If the dishwasher was not working (just like the oven) it was the landlords obligation to repair, there was no responsibility for the tenant to fund or organise that work. Given Fisher & Paykle confirmation, I accept it is more likely than not that the dishwasher was not working during the tenancy, and that the tenant had it repaired.
But as far as the cable damage is concerned, again I find the landlord has not proven that the tenant caused that damage. Because the claim is not proven by the landlord, then this claim must be dismissed. Fridge
The landlord states the tenant cut the wire for the fridge which was about two years old.
The tenant said that the fridge was working when he left the premises and referred me to the video he took at the end of the tenancy. The tenant denies that he cut the wire for the fridge.
The landlords state that when took the premises back, the fridge was in fact sitting in the middle of the dining room, and they state they did not cut the wires. Analysis
I agree that the video taken by the tenant was at the end of the tenancy after the tenant had removed all belongings, and that the fridge was working then. So the damage to the cable must have occurred after that.
Again it is no more than a possibility that the tenant caused the damage as opposed to the landlord. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has not proven this claim so it must be dismissed. Heated towel rail
Again the landlord states that the tenant cut the wire for the heated towel rail, this wire was left very short, and the rail was left outside.
The tenant states that the towel rail cable was bitten off by his dog, and the landlord was aware of this damage. The tenant referred to photographs taken by the landlord, which show the towel rail removed and inside the laundry. The tenant agrees he should compensate the landlord for this damage. Analysis
The tenant accepted at the first opportunity at the hearing, that he is liable for the replacement cost for the towel rail, as he agreed that his dog caused this damage. I note that the fact the tenant agreed to this damage without argument, has to some measure caused me to accept the tenant’s evidence in relation to the cut power cords discussed above, that is that he did not cause the damage.
I am also minded that the landlords evidence was that the towel rail was found outside. However that is not consistent with the landlords photographs which show the damaged towel rail inside the premises in the laundry.
But again the tenant accepts liability for the replacement cost. At the hearing there was a disagreement between the parties as to how much should be compensated by the tenant. At the hearing, we looked at equivalent towel rails on the Mitre 10 website, and broadly they are around the $100.00 mark. Allowing another $100.00 for installation, it was agreed that $200.00 should be ordered for this replacement cost. Carpet
The landlord states that the tenant damaged the carpet. The landlord states the tenants had two dogs, and considers that they would likely have scratched and soiled the carpet.
The tenant says that the carpet was not clean when he moved into the premises, and it smelt unpleasant. The tenant also showed an invoice where he paid for carpet cleaning during the tenancy to the sum of $342.00. Analysis
The landlord produced photographs showing some marks on the carpet at the end of the tenancy. There is fraying of the carpet where the carpet is proximate to windows, which in my view is more likely to represent the effects of moisture on the carpet.
Furthermore, the landlord showed pre-tenancy photographs. While those are more general in nature, it does appear that there is some staining on the carpets seen on those photographs.
The landlord produced photographs showing more extensive staining on the carpet when the carpets were being replaced, as opposed to straight after possession being returned. It is not clear to me why photographs were not taken at the time of possession, and not produced to the Tribunal.
The obligation is on the tenant to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy. On the basis of the evidence before me, I consider the most likely situation is that the premises were returned reasonably clean and tidy, therefore this claim is dismissed. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks an order for rubbish removal of $159.42, for the removal of a ‘Flexibin’, supported by an invoice on file.
The tenant agrees that he should pay a portion of the charge, because the bin took away rubbish from the landlord and other tenant, therefore the tenant considers that he should pay for half the charge.
The landlord disputes that rubbish in the bin was from them or anyone else, and referred to a photograph of the bin.
The tenant states that there were items shown in the bin that were not his, such as an exterior umbrella, wood, rails, lines, a black mop, paint tin, Venetian blinds and a printer. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In this case the tenant agrees that he had left some rubbish at the premises, and he agrees to paying a contribution toward the rubbish removal. However after hearing from the parties at the hearing, I consider it likely that there was some landlord rubbish in the bin, which of course the tenant is not liable for.
The tenant proposed paying half of the bin cost, which seems reasonable, and I order that as compensation for removing tenant rubbish, which is $79.71. Exterior wall holes
The landlord has claimed for repair costs to repair holes outside the property caused when the tenant installed a camera, and also removed lighting without addressing the holes. The landlord claims $500.00.
The tenant said that the light had a flood light with a camera and no additional holes were drilled for that. The tenant states that the additional camera cable hole was very minor. Analysis
The tenant accepted that there was a small hole drilled to install a security camera. If the tenant installed a device like a camera, then the tenant needed to make good any damage when he left the premises. It is reasonable that the tenant pay some compensation for the repair, which I set at $50.00, which I consider to be a fair level of compensation for what is in reality a minor repair. But I do not consider the landlord has established this claim beyond a repair cost for one cable hole. Wallpaper
The landlord claims compensation for damage to wallpaper. The landlord provided photographs of various locations where the wallpaper has been peeled off or damaged. The landlord is claiming $3,000.00 for repainting of the house, supported by an invoice. The landlord says the wallpaper is about 10 years old.
The tenant disputes that he caused the damage to the wallpaper. The tenant refers to one photograph showing what appears to be a child’s drawing, and he does not have children, he lived there only with dogs. But in short the tenant the tenant disputes causing this damage.
The landlord produced a photograph of one of the walls which showed one of the two areas of damaged wall, I agree there was no damage showing on that wall, but Mr Hwang states that this photograph was taken after the wall was painted. The landlord says that the photograph was sent by her daughter recently. Mr Hwang noted that the date of the photograph is dated this year. Analysis
The obligation sits with the landlord to prove this damage occurred during the tenancy, and I find the landlord has not proven this.
Even if that were not the case, the evidence is that the wall coverings were around ten years old, so it would be around the time for a replacement in a rental property. The fact that the landlord paid $3,000.00 for repainting strongly suggests a wide-ranging renovation project, rather than a repair of two areas of wallpaper damage.
This claim has not been established, so is dismissed. Wardrobe holes
The landlord states that the tenant cut holes in the floor and wall in the wardrobe.
The tenant states that during the tenancy there was a problem with the low-pressure hot water system in that cupboard, and he had that system replaced, and the holes were not caused by him, but when the original hot water cylinder was originally installed well before his tenancy.
The landlord states that the hot water cylinder was removed without consent or notification to the landlord. Analysis
The landlord has claimed for compensation in relation to holes in the wardrobe. I accept that these holes were not caused by the tenant, but were holes cut in the floor and walls by whoever installed the hot water cylinder originally. The tenant cannot be liable for those holes.
I note that the Tribunal has previously found that the hot water was not working, and that the landlord did not repair that, therefore the tenant had the hot water system replaced on his own initiative. The Tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse the several thousand dollars that cost the tenant.
There is no basis to order the tenant to repair the wardrobe holes. Harassment
The landlord states that the tenant took a video of her husband, which has been posted online in social media. The landlord considers this to be harassment. The landlord further states that the tenant has been watching their daughter in her bedroom, and also making unreasonable comments to her.
The tenant states that there was a long history of disruption from the landlords, including one of the landlords taking video recordings of him. The tenant also says that the daughter came to his house making offensive comments to him. The tenant states that the landlord was also pointing cameras toward his house, which the landlord refused to remove. The tenant states that the landlords had disclosed personal information to their daughter who in turn made distressing statements to the tenant. The tenant states that Netsafe and the Police were not concerned about the content he has uploaded on social media.
The landlords dispute that they have spread any personal information about the landlord, and consider that the tenant is making up stories. Analysis
I am not persuaded there is evidence of the tenant harassing the landlord. The tenant had security cameras on his house, which he was entitled to do, I am not persuaded that there is evidence he pointed these at the landlord’s house so as to bother them.
There is no evidence to support the tenant harassing the landlord’s daughter.
In terms of the social media postings, based on what the landlord showed me at the hearing, my impression is that while posting that content may not have been wise, it may have even inflamed the relationship with the landlord, but it was not of a standard where harassment would be considered.
This claim has not been established, so it is dismissed. Turning off water without consent
This claim is withdrawn. Defamation
The landlord seeks an order for alleged defamation. However as I explained at the hearing today, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider defamation claims.
But as the parties recognised at the end of the hearing, this tenancy has not gone well, and the end result was not wanted by either the tenant or landlord. But the tenancy has ended, and I am hopeful that having now received this decision, that the parties will bring their dispute to an end, and move on in their own directions.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for a suppression order, but as neither has been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4791269 — Exemplary damages at 15 Mountbatten Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4791269 — Exemplary damages at 15 Mountbatten Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions