What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839620 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Minxuan Qian and Zijian Chen at

How much money was awarded in case 4839620?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839620?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839620?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10467892-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839620 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Minxuan Qian and Zijian Chen at

How much money was awarded in case 4839620?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839620?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839620?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10467892-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839620 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839620. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
nxuan Qian and Zijian Chen at [Tenancy address suppressed] has ended as of 29 April 2024. 2. The Bond centre shall pay t	$2,680.00		nxuan Qian and Zijian Chen at [Tenancy address suppressed] has ended as of 29 April 2024. 2. The Bond centre shall pay t

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839620. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
nxuan Qian and Zijian Chen at [Tenancy address suppressed] has ended as of 29 April 2024. 2. The Bond centre shall pay t	$2,680.00		nxuan Qian and Zijian Chen at [Tenancy address suppressed] has ended as of 29 April 2024. 2. The Bond centre shall pay t

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Minxuan Qian and Zijian Chen at [Tenancy address suppressed] has ended as of 29 April 2024.
The Bond centre shall pay the Tenant $2680.00 immediately.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant applied for work orders, reduction of the fixed-term, compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond. The Tenant withdrew their claim for work orders at the start of the hearing.
This was a fixed term tenancy from 16 February 2024 to 20 February 2025.On 21 March 2024, the parties agreed that the Tenant could end the fixed term early however the termination date is disputed by the parties. On 5 April 2024, the Tenant unilaterally moved out of the property.
The Tenant is the Applicant and therefore carries the onus of proving their case on a balance of probabilities. Reduction of fixed term
The Tenant submitted he telephoned the Landlord on 2 April 2024 advising they were moving out on 4 or 5 April 2024. The Landlord told him they would ask the Owner. Without waiting for confirmation from the Owner, the Tenant vacated the property on 5 April 2024.
The Landlord submitted there was no agreement for the Tenant to move out on 5 April 2024. The Landlord told the Tenant in the telephone conversation of 2 April 2024 that they needed to give four weeks’ notice. Because the Tenant indicated their intention to vacate early, the Landlord listed the property for rental on 4 April 2024 however this action was not intended to advance the Tenants departure.
The Tenant disputed being told to give four weeks’ notice to the Landlord and they submitted, the Landlord had breached so many other clauses of their Tenancy, that he could not understand why non-compliance was an issue. The Landlord listing the property for rental on 4 April 2024 gave the Tenant no choice but to move out given there would be property viewings arranged etc.
The Tenant vacated on 5 April 2024 and wanted the tenancy reduced to terminate on this date. The Landlord submitted four weeks’ notice should have been provided which would take the termination date to 29 April 2024.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that there are limited ways in which a fixed term tenancy can end. If there is agreement to end the tenancy early, then evidence to support this agreement would assist to determine any subsequent disputes between the parties. The Tenant cannot unilaterally end a fixed term agreement early regardless of there being other issues with the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant vacating on 5 April 2024 without obtaining the Landlord’s consent first was a breach and did not justify the unilateral termination by the Tenant. I find it more likely than not that the Landlord would have asked the Tenant for notice of four weeks because the Tenant was already ending the tenancy within less than two months. They needed time to find a new Tenant.
For these reasons, whilst the tenancy is terminated, I find the termination date is on 29 April 2024. Breach of Healthy Homes standards
The Tenant has claimed the Landlord was in breach of Healthy Home Standards (“HHS”) due to issues with the ventilation in the toilet and gaps in all of the windows. The Tenant produced a Healthy Homes Inspection report dated 3 April 2024 which confirmed there were gaps around the windows due to missing or damaged joinery so they did not meet HHS. The Bathroom and ensuite ventilation fans were not operating.
The Tenant stated that although the Landlord had time to make repairs for the property to become HHS compliant, it was highly unlikely they would take this action.
The Landlord submitted she understood the property was compliant with HHS, but she had not seen the previous HHS assessment. This was the first time she had seen the Tenant’s HHS report of 3 April 2024 and submitted that some of the issues raised were repaired after the Tenant moved out.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
In considering the evidence, this tenancy commenced on 16 February 2024 and therefore the landlord has until 15 June 2024 to become compliant with Healthy Home Standards. At the time of the hearing and filing of the application to the Tribunal, the Landlord was still within the timeframe to take action to make the property compliant.
For this reason, the Tenants claim is dismissed. Claim for compensation
Minxuan Qian and Zijian Chen claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They have claimed compensation for the following: a) Two weeks rent-$1340.00; b) Reimbursement for the washing machine purchased by the Tenant - $700.00; c) Reimbursement for Tenant’s HHS report - $440.00
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tenant submitted that Landlord failed to maintain the property to a reasonable standard.
On 13 February 2024, at the property viewing, the Tenant first reported the fans in the toilet and ensuite were not working and the Landlord said they would get onto it. On 16 February 2024, when the tenancy started, the Tenant claimed the Landlord said the fans were never installed at the property but never indicated an intention to resolve this.
On 19 February 2024, the Tenant discovered there were gaps in all of the windows in the property which created drafts and unbearable noise issues. They reported this to the Landlord. The Tenant provided a video of the noise levels from the window which could be detected.
On 26 February 2024, the Tenant issued a 14-day remedy notice requesting the Landlord repair the gaps in the windows and fans by 12 March 2024.
As both parties subsequently fell ill, the Tenant agreed to extend the deadline of the 14-day notice to 22 March 2024.
On 1 and 7 March 2024, the Tenant reported to the Landlord, that the washing machine was filthy causing stains to his clothing. The Tenant estimated the machine was a 2014 model so well outside the warranty period. There was no evidence of the damage to his clothing provided or an invoice from a tradesperson to confirm the fault with the washing machine. The Tenant provided photographs of the inside of the washing machine. The Tenant was not sure if the Landlord reported this issue to the Owner.
On 10 March 2024, the other Tenant moved out of the property.
On 14 March 2024 the Landlord attended the property to inspect the issues. The Tenant advised the Landlord on 15 March 2024, that the issues needed to be completed by 20 March 2024.
On 19 March 2024, the Tenant submitted their application to the Tribunal.
On 21 March 2024, the parties met at the Tenants property to discuss the repairs. The Tenant submitted that the Landlord refused to work on all of the defects but they undertook to attend on 24 March 2024 to fix the windows. The parties agreed that the Tenant could move out.
On 22 March 2024, an electrician was scheduled to attend on 23 March 2024 for the extraction fan installation. On 24 March 2024, a tradesperson attended the property to inspect the windows.
On 30 March 2024, the Tenant signed a new lease agreement for another property. Other compensation
The Tenant also sought compensation for other issues which were not reported during the tenancy because the Tenant believed the Landlord would not take any action to repair. These included the following: a) A filthy carpark bay; b) Faulty bookshelf which collapsed when the Tenant wiped it after living at the property for approximately one week; c) Faulty lounge cabinet which fell apart when the Tenant opened a drawer after living in the property for approximately one week; d) Faulty kitchen tap which had a sticker on it stating not to move it since the start of the tenancy; e) Food disposal waste unit which had a sticker on it preventing its usage since the start of the tenancy. f) Dirty curtains
The Tenant submitted the Landlord would attend to a lot of the repairs himself to save costs however the workmanship was of poor quality.
Because the Landlord did not act promptly, the Tenant arranged a quote from a professional window tradesperson to assess the repairs of the windows. The Landlord however still insisted on sending their own professionals to inspect the issue.
The Tenant also arranged an electrician to repair one kitchen light socket and sought compensation for it. They did not inform the Landlord they repaired this at the time but they now wanted reimbursement for this.
The Landlord submitted that they attended to the repairs for the window and fans in a reasonable timeframe and they were not fully repaired until after the Tenant moved out.
The Landlord submitted the property was built over 20 years ago so there was only single glazing on the windows which would have impacted the noise levels. The Landlord submitted the washing machine was still under warranty and there was no issue when he used it to wash his own duvets.
In considering the evidence for the state of the windows and fans, I find these were not in a reasonable state of repair however the Landlord took reasonable steps to remedy this. The Tenant did not stay at the property long enough to witness the repairs but wanted them repaired hastily. Within two weeks of living at the property, he sent a 14 days remedy notice and then gave them a month to repair it following both parties becoming ill. The Landlord first arranged an inspection of the issues within a few weeks of receiving the 14 day notice but the issue required repeated visits as to why repair was not completed by the time the Tenant moved out. The Landlord had a right to send different tradespersons to inspect the issue which can be a process in itself.
The Landlord was also not obliged to accept the quote from the window professional appointed by the Tenant. It is the Landlord’s responsibility to undertake repairs at the property and this responsibility allows them to choose their tradespersons.
The Tenant submitted they suffered from the cold drafts and unbearable noises however the Landlords evidence was that this was an older building and the windows were not double glazed. These noise levels were to be expected in the city. In terms of the drafts, there no evidence to prove the loss on the Tenant such as illnesses and increased electricity bills due to heating required. This may have been because their tenancy was short lived.
In terms of the other repairs such as the faulty furniture, waste disposal unit, and kitchen tap, I accept these were not in proper working order however the Tenant had an obligation to follow up on the issues with the Landlord so they could repair them. A Landlord cannot be liable for a repair they are not made aware of.
There was also no evidence provided from an independent tradesperson to confirm there were issues with the washing machine or evidence of the damage it had on the Tenants clothing.
There was no evidence provided that the Tenant raised the issue of the curtains being dirty with the Landlord.
The parking bay was not part of the tenancy agreement and there was no evidence provided to show the dirty condition.
For these reasons, the claims for compensation are dismissed. Exemplary damages for failure to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair
The Tenant claimed exemplary damages because the Landlord failed to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching section 45(1) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenant submitted the Landlord never intended to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair because they reluctantly responded to his requests for repairs, the Tenant referred to multiple other cases in the Tenancy Tribunal where the same Landlord was found to not maintain properties in a reasonable state of repair and were slow to make repairs for Tenants. The Tenant submitted the Landlord would make repairs themselves which were of poor quality to save money.
The landlord submitted, they always used the best qualified professionals to make repairs on their properties and with the cases that had been before the Tribunal, there were different Property Managers with different Landlords so those cases could be distinguished. Their intention had always been to repair the property and maintain it to a reasonable standard for their Tenants.
In considering the evidence, I find the fact that the Landlord sent an electrician and window tradesperson in March 2024 indicates the landlord’s intention that they were trying to undertake repairs for the Tenant. The issue came about because it was not within the timeframe which suited the Tenant.
The claim by the Tenant is dismissed. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment
Minxuan Qian and Zijian Chen claims the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment by sending multiple tradespersons to the property. On one occasion, the Owner tried to visit after the Tenant advised the Landlord he did not want to be present with the Owner alone. The Tenant claimed the visits by the Trades people was intrusive because they came multiple times and the issue was not fixed straight away. The visits were excessive and disturbed his peace.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The Landlord or their tradespersons have attended the property on multiple days in March 2024 to repair the issues raised by the Tenant.
I do not find they have committed an unlawful act. The Landlord gave proper notice they were coming and on the occasion the Owner came, he was refused by the Tenant. The Tenant wanted the issues fixed and had provided a 14 day notice to remedy so the Landlord was trying to respond. It is not for the Tenant to determine how many times a Tradesperson should attend to complete their work.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Bond refund
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord did not make a claim for the bond at the hearing.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
As the Landlord has been successful in their defence, name suppression is granted.
As the Tenant has not been successful in their application, name suppression is refused to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839620 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839620 — 14-day notice

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