What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4824583 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 4824583?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Homes Statement, Insurance Statement…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824583?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10693767-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4824583 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 4824583?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Homes Statement, Insurance Statement…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824583?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10693767-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4824583 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4824583 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,200.00		Rent arrears
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy		$500.00	Failure to provide healthy
homes statement, insurance statement, and		$1,200.00	homes statement, insurance statement, and
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$1,220.44	$1,720.44
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4824583 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,200.00		Rent arrears
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide healthy		$500.00	Failure to provide healthy
homes statement, insurance statement, and		$1,200.00	homes statement, insurance statement, and
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$1,220.44	$1,720.44
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. 3.

Reasons

Background

The previous order dated 26 April 2024 sets out the background to the tenant’s application.
The landlord filed a cross-application on 21 July 2024, seeking rent arrears.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 24 July 2024. Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] agreed to waive the requirement for notice in respect of the landlord’s application. Both applications were heard on 24 July. Tenant application Bond
Landlords must pass on any bond payments to the Bond Centre within 23- working days of receipt 1 .
Failure to do so is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 can apply.
Mr Smith received a bond payment from [The tenant/s] on 15 February 2024. The Bond Centre confirmed receiving the bond on 4 March 2024.
Mr Smith paid the bond to the Bond Centre within 23-working days of receipt. He met his legal duty and there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages. Failure to provide information in the tenancy agreement
Landlords must provide a written tenancy agreement 2 .
The tenancy agreement must include: a. Minimum information, including the contact details of the parties, the amount of the rent, and the amount of the bond 3 . b. An insulation statement 4 . c. A healthy homes statement 5 . d. An insurance statement 6 . 1 Section 19(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 13 RTA 3 Section 13A(1) RTA 4 Section 13A(1A) RTA 5 Section 13A(1CA) RTA 6 Section 13A(2) RTA
A failure to provide a written tenancy agreement, or a failure to include the requisite information in the tenancy agreement, is an unlawful act.
Exemplary damages of up to $750.00 can apply for each of these unlawful acts.
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act has been committed intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to 7 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance, Mr Smith provided [The tenant/s] with a written agreement. Mr Smith said that he drafted the agreement after taking advice from Tenancy Services.
The agreement includes the minimum information required by law, but it does not include the statements that are required by law (insulation, healthy homes, and insurance).
I accept that Mr Smith was trying his best to meet his legal obligations in respect of providing a suitable tenancy agreement. He was not aware of the particular requirements in respect of statements.
The fact that this was an oversight does not mean that the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages 8 , but it is a relevant consideration when assessing an appropriate amount of exemplary damages.
My findings are: a. It would be unjust to award multiple cumulative awards of exemplary damages in respect of the failure to provide an insulation statement, a healthy homes statement, and an insurance statement. b. The failure to provide these statements was a genuine error on Mr Smith’s part. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords provide this information to tenants at the start of every tenancy. d. Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $500.00. Providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 7 Section 109 RTA 8 T.M.T. New Zealand Ltd v Sweeney & Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182
Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 9 .
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The premises were dirty when he moved in. He spent several days cleaning. b. There were cockroaches in the premises. c. There was a stain on the mattress that the landlord provided.
Mr Smith said that the premises were clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] provided a photograph of the mattress, but no other photographs showing the general condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
The relevant standard is “reasonable state of cleanliness”. Apart from the photograph of the mattress, the only evidence available to me about the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy is the different subjective views of [The tenant/s] and Mr Smith.
The one proven issue – the stain on the mattress – is not sufficient to support a finding that the premises were not reasonably clean.
This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed. Providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises 10 .
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The power points in the caravan did not work when he moved in. An employee of Mr Smith ran an extension cord into the caravan through a window and this was his power supply for the duration of his tenancy. b. The windows did not close properly.
Mr Smith said that the power points did work and that the caravan has a legal and compliant power supply. Mr Smith said that any problems that [The tenant/s] experienced with power supply during the tenancy were due to him running too many large appliances including an air conditioning unit, which caused the fuse to trip.
Landlords have a duty to ensure that the premises have a safe and adequate supply of electricity. However, different types of premises have inherent limitations. In this instance the premises is a caravan. 9 Section 45(1)(a) RTA 10 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
Neither party provided relevant evidence in support of their arguments about the electricity set-up. Mr Smith said that a registered electrician ‘signed off’ the set- up not long before the start of [The tenant/s] tenancy, but he did not provide any documentation or invoices from that electrician. [The tenant/s] provided copies of messages between himself and Mr Smith, and photographs of some aspects of the premises.
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
My finding is that it is not proven, to the standard of more likely than not, that the power supply to the premises was inadequate or non-compliant.
[The tenant/s] said that the windows in the caravan were difficult to close, and when they were closed there was still a gap around the window that allowed draughts. [The tenant/s] applied duct tape to the windows.
Mr Smith said that the windows close without difficulty and there are no gaps around them.
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
The only evidence available to me is the conflicting opinions of [The tenant/s] and Mr Smith. [The tenant/s] has not proven, to the standard of more likely than not, that the windows were faulty or defective. Smoke alarms
[The tenant/s] said that there was no smoke alarm or fire extinguisher in the caravan during his tenancy. He said that Mr Smith did not provide him with any information about what to do in the event of fire.
Mr Smith said that there was a smoke alarm in the caravan at the start of the tenancy and also a fire extinguisher located near the door. Mr Smith said that the smoke alarm and fire extinguisher were missing at the end of the tenancy – the implication being that [The tenant/s] removed them.
There is a positive duty on landlords to ensure that the premises have adequate compliant smoke alarms. In this instance there is no entry inspection report, no photographs, and no reference to a smoke alarm or fire extinguisher on the tenancy agreement.
I was provided with a copy of a lengthy text message (including photos) that Mr Smith sent to [The tenant/s] after [The tenant/s] vacated. The message expresses Mr Smith’s disappointment with the state of the premises. Mr Smith makes no comment about a fire extinguisher or smoke alarm being missing.
The evidence available to me does not establish, to the standard of “more likely than not” that there was a smoke alarm in the premises during [The tenant/s] tenancy.
Failure to provide a compliant smoke alarm is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to 11 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. I accept that Mr Smith honestly believed that there was a smoke alarm and a fire extinguisher in the caravan 12 . b. This was a relatively brief tenancy. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords diligently meet their duty in respect of smoke alarms.
Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $1,200.00. Healthy homes standards
Landlords must meet the healthy homes standards in respect of heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping.
Failure to meet the healthy homes standards by the date of compliance for the tenancy is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
[The tenant/s] raised two issues under this heading: a. No means of heating in the caravan. b. Draughts due to gaps around windows.
The gaps around windows issue is discussed above. My finding was that [The tenant/s] had not proven any unreasonable gaps around the windows.
Mr Smith said that there was a means of heating in the caravan – a small fan heater. He said that there are heaters in all of the caravans. This was confirmed in an inspection that Tenancy Services carried out after [The tenant/s] tenancy. 11 Section 109 RTA 12 See Tough v Christchurch Residential Rentals Ltd [2018] NZTT Christchurch 4142291. The Tribunal made an award of exemplary damages “at the lower end [of the scale] because I acknowledge [the landlord’s] belief that he did provide smoke alarms”.
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 120 days from the start date of the tenancy. However, the tenancy ended after only a few weeks.
This part of the application is dismissed on the following grounds: a. It is not proven that the premises failed to meet the healthy homes standards in respect of heating and draught stopping. b. The compliance date for this tenancy was 5 June 2024. Interference with the supply of services (internet)
Landlords must not interfere with the supply of services to the premises. A breach of this duty is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $1,800 can apply.
This is not a positive duty on the landlord to ensure that there is a continuing supplying supply of services to the premises. It is a negative duty – the landlord must not turn off the power, water, wi-fi (etc).
[The tenant/s] said that he was unable to connect to the wi-fi at times during the tenancy. He said that when he raised the issue Mr Smith did not take any active steps to help him connect.
Mr Smith said that when [The tenant/s] raised the issue, he investigated it and he could not find any problems with the wi-fi.
To be entitled to exemplary damages, [The tenant/s] must prove (to the standard of “more likely than not”) that the most likely explanation is that Mr Smith turned off the modem.
I do not have enough information to make a positive finding about why [The tenant/s] was unable to connect to the internet at times. There are a number of possible explanations. I am not satisfied that the most likely explanation is that Mr Smith intentionally turned off the modem.
This part of the tenant’s application is not proven. Breach of quiet enjoyment Introduction
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant. A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 can apply.
[The tenant/s] raised the following issues under this heading: a. That Mr Smith shared inappropriately personal information during a car ride early in [The tenant/s] tenancy. b. Incidents involving M. c. Guests using [The tenant/s] kitchen without consent on 23 February 2024. d. Incidents involving T. a. Car ride incident
Mr Smith gave [The tenant/s] a ride into town early in [The tenant/s] tenancy.
[The tenant/s] says that during the trip Mr Smith talked to him about extremely personal matters such as relationships, despite him telling Mr Smith that he didn’t want to hear about it.
At the hearing, Mr Smith did not specifically deny this allegation, although he had the opportunity to do so. Mr Smith did say that [The tenant/s] has conflated several different conversations that happened at different times.
A landlord / tenant relationship is a human relationship, and people are different. Some people prefer to operate on the basis of friendship rather than formality. Some people are more open than others.
I agree that landlords must be careful in their interactions with tenants. Being a landlord is a commercial activity and a business-like approach is appropriate.
However, in the absence of any real context for this conversation (or these conversations), and in light of the limited and anecdotal evidence about it, it would not be appropriate to make an award of damages. “Over sharing” by a landlord is to be discouraged, but it is not the same thing as harassment. b. Incidents involving M
On the first day of [The tenant/s] tenancy, a man came to the premises in a very angry and agitated state. I will refer to that man as “M” in this decision.
M was angry about something that Mr Smith had allegedly done. M was known to Mr Smith.
Mr Smith was not at the property at the time. M shouted and swore. He eventually left when it was apparent that Mr Smith was not there.
He returned several times.
Mr Smith said that he tried to calm M down. He thought that M’s anger was unjustified and based on a misunderstanding. He did not contact the police or issue a trespass order against M because he thought that might inflame the situation.
There is no doubt that M’s behaviour caused an interference with [The tenant/s] reasonable peace comfort and privacy. The incident was quite disturbing, especially given that it occurred on the first day of his tenancy, and (as [The tenant/s] explained) he moved to this property after a difficult experience in his previous tenancy.
However, this is not an example of a landlord causing or permitting an interference with the tenant’s peace comfort and privacy. Mr Smith cannot control M’s behaviour. M came to the premises uninvited. Mr Smith took reasonable steps to diffuse the situation when it came to his attention.
I understand that the situation with M developed during [The tenant/s] tenancy, and [The tenant/s] became involved, in an attempt to be a ‘peacemaker’. This perhaps contributed to tension between [The tenant/s] and Mr Smith, and it was a burden for [The tenant/s]. However, [The tenant/s] volunteered for that role. As with the situation involving T (discussed below), [The tenant/s] was involuntarily exposed to some of Mr Smith’s conflicts, but he made a decision to become embroiled in them.
There is no basis for an award of damages under this heading. c. Guests using [The tenant/s] kitchen area without consent on 21 February 2024
On 21 February 2024 [The tenant/s] arrived home to find that a group of strangers were using his outdoor kitchen area.
The strangers had made themselves quite at home. They were cooking, and they had moved [The tenant/s] belongings around. They were Chinese, and spoke very little English. In response to [The tenant/s] confusion, they said that “the Captain” had told them that it was OK for them to cook a meal in this space. [The tenant/s] assumed that they meant Mr Smith.
Mr Smith was fishing at the time.
It transpired that this group had made a booking for the caravan next to [The tenant/s], but they did not arrive on the date that they had booked. Mr Smith rented the caravan to someone else. The group then arrived unexpectedly, on the wrong day.
Mr Smith said that he did not tell the group to use [The tenant/s] kitchen. He was not aware that they had shown up until he got back from fishing. He assumes that it was the person in the neighbouring caravan who directed them to [The tenant/s] kitchen.
I accept Mr Smith’s explanation about who the group was, and why he was not at the property when they arrived. In short, he had no reason to expect that they were going to arrive.
It would certainly be a breach of Mr Smith’s legal duty if he told the visitors to move into [The tenant/s] kitchen and start cooking there. However, the only “evidence” of this is an enigmatic comment by a person with limited English. I understand [The tenant/s] suspicion, but this is hardly compelling.
There is no basis for an award of damages under this heading. d. Incidents involving T
T was the partner of another tenant of Mr Smith.
[The tenant/s] spoke about three incidents involving T that occurred on the same day, 29 February 2024.
The first incident took place in Mr Smith’s car. Mr Smith was in the car with his tenant and with T. Mr Smith and T got into an argument. Mr Smith told T to get out of the car, which she did. T recorded the incident on her phone.
The second incident took place in the afternoon / early evening. T, who was clearly upset from the incident earlier in the day, had encamped near the property. I understand that M was also present. Mr Smith was walking past, and an argument ensued. [The tenant/s] heard the argument from his caravan. He ran out and attempted to intervene.
The third incident took place late that night. T was on the property attempting to get into her partner’s caravan. He did not let her in. Mr Smith confronted her and told her to leave. She did not. He then removed her from the property. As she was going, she yelled [The tenant/s] name, asking him for his help.
Mr Smith said that: a. T is not his tenant. b. He issued trespass notices against T in November 2023 and on 9 February 2024 (copies were provided to the Tribunal). T had no legal right to be on the property.
My findings are: a. T is not Mr Smith’s tenant. b. Mr Smith was entitled to trespass T from the premises, which he owns. Trespass notices were issued against T. c. The first incident cannot, even in theory, be an interference with [The tenant/s] peace, comfort, and privacy. It took place away from the tenanted premises and it did not involve [The tenant/s] at all. d. The second incident also took place away from the tenanted premises and it also did not involve [The tenant/s] at all. The only connection with the tenanted premises is that [The tenant/s] could hear the argument when he was in his caravan. Overhearing arguments between people is a relatively minimal interference with a tenant’s peace and privacy, and is something that people living in close proximity must expect occasionally. [The tenant/s] then chose to involve himself in the dispute. He was free to do that, but the further interference with his peace and privacy which that decision brought upon him was a consequence of his own choice. e. In terms of the third incident, T was trespassing on the premises. Mr Smith was entitled to require her to leave. The incident was an interference with [The tenant/s] peace and privacy (he was awoken by shouting in the middle of the night), but that interference was caused by T’s illegal action of coming onto the property, not by Mr Smith’s legal action of requiring her to leave.
There is no basis for an award of damages in respect of this issue. Conclusion – tenant’s application
The proven parts of [The tenant/s] application are failure to provide statements in the tenancy agreement, and failure to provide a smoke alarm.
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in his application and I will also award him the filing fee of $20.44.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 13 .
[The tenant/s] provided evidence about a safety risk (not related to the landlord) that he could be exposed to if his name was published. I accept that this is a genuine and real risk, and on that basis, I will grant name suppression to [The tenant/s]. Landlord application
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears on the grounds that [The tenant/s] abandoned the tenancy.
The written tenancy states: This Fixed Term tenancy is a maximum three-month contract by which can be renewable after the three months and may be ended by: The Landlord giving the appropriate amount of written notice in terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that possession of the house is required. By the Landlord serving on the Tenant a Notice to Quit. The Landlord may serve such notice either: i.To terminate the tenancy at an end date. 13 Section 95A(4) RTA ii.To terminate the tenancy where the Tenant has broken or not performed any of the obligations under this agreement. iii.The expiry of the three months following the start of the tenancy. By the Tenant giving the Landlord the legally required 28 days’ notice in writing to terminate the tenancy.
The RTA applies.
The RTA states that 14 : a. A fixed term tenancy is one that cannot be terminated by notice. b. If a tenancy is not a fixed term tenancy, it is a periodic tenancy.
The terms of the tenancy agreement allow for termination of the tenancy by notice. Therefore, this was not a fixed term tenancy.
Tenants must give 28 days’ notice to the landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy 15 .
I was provided with a screenshot of a message from [The tenant/s] to Mrs Smith. The message states that [The tenant/s] had moved out and that “tomorrow Mr Justin Smith will receive the notification that I had vacated completely the property”. The date at the top of that screenshot is 29 February 2024.
I will treat 1 March 2024 as the date that notice of termination was given to the landlord. The tenancy terminated on 29 March 2024, and [The tenant/s] remained liable for rent to that date.
Rent was paid to 5 March 2024.
[The tenant/s] owes 24 days of rent arrears, which is $1,200.00.
The landlord has been successful in his application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44. Outcome
The net outcome is that the landlord is to pay the tenant $500.00.
The bond will be released to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824583 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824583 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions