What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4807618 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders that the landlord’s name and details be suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4807618?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4807618?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4807618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10359085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4807618 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders that the landlord’s name and details be suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4807618?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4807618?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4807618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10359085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

102E Liverpool Street, Whanganui, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4807618 — State of repair

Order

The Tribunal orders that the landlord’s name and details be suppressed.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond of $1,700.00 to the tenant.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal was for compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Refund of the bond. See section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. The landlord unreasonably withheld consent to the tenant’s application for a fixture or alteration. See section 42A(1) RTA. c. The landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. d. The landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. See section 38(2) RTA. e. The landlord entered the premises without the tenant’s consent. See section 48(1) RTA. f. The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy knowing it was not entitled to do so, See section 60AA RTA.
The landlord provided evidence at the hearing that it has a claim for further unpaid rent. As the tenant did not consent to that issue being considered at the hearing, and in the absence of an application from the landlord, the Tribunal cannot make any order in relation to any amount that may be owing. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the tenant’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. Refund of bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond for unpaid rent, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant. Attaching fixtures
The tenant claimed that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to the tenant’s request to put up a curtain or blinds in the hallway and a child safety gate.
The tenant requested the landlord at the property inspection on 26 October 2022 to allow the tenant to put up a curtain or blinds in the hallway. The landlord responded on that date by email stating: “You are welcome to have something there, provided the walls are returned to their original state as at the beginning of the tenancy. This must be done at your own cost.”
The tenant claimed that after this email, the landlord verbally advised the tenant that they could not install the curtain/blinds.
The landlord denied that it had changed its response from that in its email of 26 October 2022.
The tenant did not provide any contemporaneous evidence of a similar request in relation to the child safety gate. The landlord advised that it has no record of this request but that its response would have been the same as for the curtain/blinds.
There is no evidence in relation to ether request that it was made in writing. The landlord has not therefore committed an unlawful act under section 42A(7) RTA which only relates to requests made in writing.
The tenant emailed the landlord on 11 January 2024, after the parties had mutually agreed that the tenancy would end on 15 January 2024, complaining that consent for the curtain/blinds had not been given some 14 months prior. The tenant did not produce any evidence of further requests or complaints regarding the lack of consent during that period.
The tenant did not produce any evidence in support of their claims that the landlord denied consent. The only contemporaneous evidence before the Tribunal is the email from the landlord granting consent on the usual terms. The tenant has not therefore persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has unreasonably withheld consent to either of the requests.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Landlord’s failure to maintain
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises by not repairing the bathroom door and the clothesline.
The premises were new in 2021, about a year before the tenancy started. The landlord advised that the property remained under the builder’s warranty. The parties agreed that there was an issue with the bathroom door and that this was recorded in the landlord’s property inspection of 26 October 2022. The landlord believed the required repair was relatively minor and suggested by email on that date that the tenant make the necessary adjustment himself. The tenant declined.
The landlord gave evidence that it therefore requested the builder to undertake the required repair under the warranty. The landlord produced a copy of its work order issued on 2 November 2022. It believed that the work had been completed satisfactorily.
The tenant did not produce any further evidence of complaining that the issue remained over the remaining 14 months of the tenancy. The landlord stated in its written submission: “No recorded contact was made [by the tenant] in regards to property maintenance between the period of 2/11/22 – 15/01/24 (vacate date).”
The tenant claimed that the washing line was damaged in a storm in late 2022 and remained unrepaired at the end of the tenancy. The only evidence he provided was a photo in the exit inspection of the washing line.
The tenant claimed that shrubs in the premises’ private courtyard were not trimmed by the landlord during the tenancy. The tenant confirmed at the hearing that this did not cause the tenant any inconvenience or disturbance. The landlord did not therefore have any obligation to trim the shrubs.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. On the evidence, the landlord has responded promptly to the one issue of which it was aware.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Quiet enjoyment
The tenant claimed that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by not taking adequate steps to stop or prevent other tenants from either parking in their reserved parking space, or parking so as to obstruct the tenant’s vehicles.
The only evidence of the tenant complaining to the landlord about this issue is in the email from the landlord to the tenant dated 26 October 2022 confirming that the landlord had spoken to the neighbouring tenant who was moving out.
The only other evidence of complaint to the landlord about this issue is an email of 11 January 2023 which states that the tenant had complained to the Property Manager regarding a neighbour parking in the tenant’s designated car park.
The landlord explained at the hearing that the neighbouring tenant was parking in her own parking area, but that the nature of her vehicle may have made it awkward for the tenant.
The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to address this issue in an appropriate manner or that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment has been breached. Any inconvenience suffered appears to have been because of the nature of the premises, not the inaction of the landlord.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Landlord’s entry without consent
The tenant claimed that the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claimed that the photographs in the landlord’s exit inspection report of 16 January 2024 showed that there were items remaining in the premises which the tenant had removed by the date of the report. The tenant therefore claimed that the landlord must have accessed the property before 16 January 2024. No other evidence was produced in support of this claim.
The landlord provided a copy of the email notice dated 11 January 2024 sent to all the tenants at the complex advising them of the inspection on 16 January 2024. The landlord confirmed that the inspection of all the units at the complex were completed on that day and denied accessing the property on any earlier day.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the landlord breached the requirements of section 48 RTA. The landlord’s notice and the report indicate that the landlord complied with that section’s requirements. The tenant’s evidence does not persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Notice to terminate
The parties agreed that: a. On 4 December 2023 the landlord gave 63 days’ notice to the tenant under section 51(1)(a) RTA that the landlord required the premises as the principal place of residence of the landlord’s son. b. The tenant gave written notice to the landlord on 18 December 2023 to terminate the tenancy on 28 days’ notice. c. A sealed mediated Order between the parties confirmed that “the tenancy will end by mutual consent on Monday 15 January 2024”.
The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA.
Under section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
The landlord’s Property Manager provided a copy of an email dated 4 December 2023 from the landlord instructing the Property Manager to give 63 days’ notice because “My son is moving back from Australia and I will need the property for his accommodation.”
The landlord knew that it was entitled to give notice to the tenant because requiring the premises for the occupation of a member of the landlord’s family is a valid reason for terminating a tenancy under section 51 RTA.
The tenant produced a copy of an advertisement dated 30 January 2024 for renting out the premises at a higher rent than the tenant was paying. The tenant believes that the landlord was not genuine in requiring the premises for his son and that his true intention was to get the tenant out and let the premises at a higher rent.
The landlord denied this allegation and advised that his son’s circumstances changed so that the premises were no longer required. As the tenant had given notice and the parties had agreed on an end date for the tenancy in December 2023, it decided to advertise the premises for rent in late January 2024.
I note that section 51(1)(a) RTA provides that the family member has 90 days from the termination date to occupy the premises. It is not uncommon for people to change their minds or for their circumstances to change between the date of giving notice and the time when they would be moving in. The total period within which a change of mind can occur is 153 days, nearly 22 weeks or five months. Here, the landlord claimed a change of mind or circumstances after a period of some two months.
In this particular case, where the parties have mutually agreed to terminate the tenancy at mediation on an agreed date, and where the written evidence before the Tribunal is that the landlord believed it was entitled to give notice, the tenant’s claim must fail and is dismissed. The tenant has not proven to the Tribunal that the landlord knew it was not entitled to terminate the tenancy at the time it issued the notice to terminate on 4 December 2023. Suppression and refund of the filing fee
Section 95A(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published.
The tenant based their application on six claims. The tenant has only been successful in their claim for the bond refund. The tenant has not therefore been substantially successful in these proceedings and so name suppression is not granted to the tenant and nor is the tenant entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the landlord has successfully defended five of the tenant’s claims, it is appropriate that it be granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4807618 — State of repair at 102E Liverpool Street, Whanganui, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4807618 — State of repair at 102E Liverpool Street, Whanganui, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions