What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4841342 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,220.44 immediately in accordance

How much money was awarded in case 4841342?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Oven 5 Weeks: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Plants: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Use Of Electricity: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4841342?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4841342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10456770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4841342 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,220.44 immediately in accordance

How much money was awarded in case 4841342?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Oven 5 Weeks: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Plants: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Use Of Electricity: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4841342?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4841342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10456770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

56 Awanui Drive, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4841342 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4841342 — net $1,220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lack of oven 5 weeks	$50.00	lack of oven 5 weeks
Compensation: use of electricity	$150.00	use of electricity
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment: trades	$600.00	breach of quiet enjoyment: trades
Compensation: loss of plants	$100.00	loss of plants
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$300.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,220.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,220.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4841342 — net $1,220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lack of oven 5 weeks	$50.00	lack of oven 5 weeks
Compensation: use of electricity	$150.00	use of electricity
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment: trades	$600.00	breach of quiet enjoyment: trades
Compensation: loss of plants	$100.00	loss of plants
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$300.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,220.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,220.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,220.44 immediately in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.
The owners had asked to be joined to the hearing by phone as they are overseas. Calls were made to their number, however they would not connect. The number for the hearing room was provided to the owners however they report they were not able to connect. I was only made aware of the latter point at the end of the hearing so was not able to take any other steps to include them. The hearing therefore had to continue in their absence 1 . They were comprehensively represented at the hearing by their agent, [The landlord’s representative].
[The tenant/s] have applied to the Tribunal for relief in the form of compensation and/or exemplary damages for a number of issues they faced in their tenancy between December 2021 and March 2024.
When considering their claims, I must first ascertain whether the landlord has breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and then if so, whether any monetary award should be made. In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish their case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. I apply this standard to the claims which I discuss separately below.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

[The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has failed to meet their maintenance obligations with respect to the oven and the light vent.
Section 45 of the RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. It is well settled that the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. 1 Section 85 RTA The oven
There is no dispute that in early 2023 the oven failed. [The tenant/s] remember being without a working oven for 2-4 months which impacted them greatly to the extent they had to purchase an air fryer.
[The landlord’s representative] gave evidence that she was notified on 7 February that it had failed and instructed a trade the next day. There was an issue with getting parts, but her emails indicate it was repaired on 14 March.
The tenants feel it was longer however there is no documentary evidence to support that recollection. As such, I accept [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence that it was a period of five weeks. This is not a particularly long period given the need to source parts.
I do not find that the landlord breached their obligation with respect to section 45 of the RTA as [The landlord’s representative] pursued the matter as diligently as she could. Accordingly, the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I do accept that the tenants were without a working oven for five weeks which is a lack of amenity. The tenants were paying for a property with a working oven and were not receiving that facility. I consider an award of compensation of $50, which equates to a rent reduction of $10 per week, justified in these circumstances. Light vent
In the kitchen there are two light vents. Early on into the tenancy the inside cap of one fell down and broke. This meant there was no internal cover for the vent, only the exterior cover. This was not replaced during the tenancy. [The tenant/s]’s evidence is that this affected their capacity to heat the property and it made it so expensive to heat that for the second winter they were in the property they did not use the heater.
[The landlord’s representative]’s evidence is that the owners repaired the cap 11 months into the tenancy, but they did not replace it as [The tenant/s] specifically told them not to. She refers to the two following emails from [The tenant/s]: a. 20 January 2022: No rush on the lightshade. I don’t care if it gets replaced or not. I am more concerned about the other one dropping on me. b. 25 May 2023: We don’t want to put it back up, as cold as it is in here. We can’t see why it fell down, no inspection has been done to make sure the other doesn’t just fall either. They aren’t looking after this place at all.
[The tenant/s] says she did not want it replaced because it may fall again but did want something to cover the hole.
I am not satisfied that [The landlord’s representative] breached section 45 here as she was specifically told not to replace the cap. I do not find it evidenced that an alternative was requested. I consider she was entitled to read [The tenant/s]’s emails as a request to take no further steps.
Further, as a matter of law, a tenant is not entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered. There were doors that could have been closed to keep the heat in the living area and not dissipating into the kitchen, and requests could have been made for an alternative cover.
I do consider however that [The landlord’s representative] should have checked the other vent to ensure it was secure given [The tenant/s]’s notified concern. She says she did not feel it necessary as there was no indication anything was wrong with it and there was no request from the tenants to do so.
Whilst I do not consider the failure to check the second vent was a breach of section 45, it would have been best practice to take that extra step.
This claim must be dismissed as no breach of section 45 RTA has been established. Was the tenants’ quiet enjoyment breached?
[The tenant/s] submit that their right to quiet enjoyment of their tenancy was seriously compromised in a number of ways. Particularly: a. Because of workmen in the property for eight months when they had only been advised they would be there for six weeks. b. The gardener who would come without giving notice, not attend regularly, pulled out their plants and used their ladders. c. The neighbours who were told by the owner to keep an eye on them.
Section 38 of the RTA states that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. It is a broad statement and codifies the common law standard of a right to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption.
However, while s38(2) states that the landlord must not cause any interference, the duty is modified by the degree of interference being to the “reasonable peace, comfort or privacy” of the tenant. It is clear from these sections that temporary discomfort or inconvenience does not constitute a basis for breach of the covenant. There are several circumstances, as with this case, where the landlord’s rights (such as to carry out maintenance or renovations) are inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In those cases, it is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. The landlord is entitled to carry out maintenance, but those actions can quickly breach reasonable peace, comfort and privacy if they are not well managed.
The District Court has held in Lucas v Paterson [2005]DCR76 that where landlords are renovating property, tenants are required to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance without compensation, with the judge commenting “Were every landlord who embarked on renovations to be in immediate jeopardy of quiet enjoyment breach, we would have an unworkable state of affairs. Proportionality must not be forgotten.” However, there are cases in contrast to Lucas v Paterson in which construction activity on or adjacent to premises has given rise to a breach. In Marino & Ors v Wellington City Council DC, Wellington, CIV-2013-085-660,23 September 2013, it was considered relevant in determining what was reasonable, that the tenants had prior knowledge of the work that was going to take place.
In summary, whether the interference complained of breaches the quiet enjoyment covenant is a question of reasonableness having regard to all the circumstances, including prior knowledge of the work being carried out, and the length and degree of intrusion.
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. These actions indicate that generally there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person or persons which causes distress. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would generally be unlikely to amount to harassment. The definitions also require the act to be intentional; carelessness or negligence is not sufficient.
Section 48 of the RTA details how the landlord is to give notice to attend a tenanted premise. Notably, the definition of premises in s48 does not include land or facilities. Therefore, entry onto the land, but not the interior of the premises, might not be a breach of s48. However, in some circumstances, entry onto the land could be a breach of quiet enjoyment under s38 RTA. The work
When taking on the tenancy [The tenant/s] were told that the owner would be undertaking some renovations to the sleepout. They were told the work was expected to take six weeks only and the impact on them would be minimised.
In reality the work took approximately six 2 months although there were several times when the workers were away for approximately a fortnight.
[The tenant/s] say the impact on them was considerable and far more than they ever considered likely. Specifically, they note: a. There was usually at least one vehicle parked in the drive which impeded their access to the house and the garage, and they had to park on the street the majority of the time. 3 b. They often could not use the front door as it was frequently blocked by the trades’ gates or tools or vehicles, so they had to use the side door. c. Access to the side door was also often impeded as the trades used the hose which came from that side of the garage. d. The trades used their water, electricity and some of their belongings. e. The trades were very loud which impacted [The tenant/s] work as he permanently works from home. At times he had to go to the library to work. f. The trades could see right into their living room from where they were working.
[The tenant/s] say that during this period they had no privacy and could not use their outdoor space. There were always people there and in the way, and they felt disrespected and that they had no say in the situation.
[The landlord’s representative] says that she did her best to manage the circumstances, but it was difficult as the trades were employed through the owners who are located overseas. She says that she came to an agreement with them that only one van would park up the driveway, and she would immediately follow up any concern notified to her.
[The landlord’s representative] accepts the imposition on [The tenant/s] of the work was greater than agreed to and considers some form of compensation is appropriate. She does note that the owners paid [The tenant/s]’s water bill throughout the period, and she also agrees to an order for $150 compensation for the use of electricity.
As there is no way to establish how much of [The tenant/s]’s electricity the trades used, and [The tenant/s] suggested $150, a figure [The landlord’s representative] has agreed to, I make that order by consent. 2 The tenants’ submission was 8 months, but the email evidence indicates it was 6 months. 3 An approximately 30 metre walk
The works were certainly a breach of [The tenant/s]’s quiet enjoyment of the property. The time frame was considerably more than that previously notified, they did provide obstacles to [The tenant/s] to access their property and they were essentially in [The tenant/s]’s front garden. It is understandable in these circumstances that [The tenant/s] felt they had no privacy.
I do not find it established in evidence however that it was an unlawful act 4 as the elongated period was not intentionally created to wear [The tenant/s] down and the estimated timeframe was made in good faith. I therefore cannot make an award of exemplary damages.
I do however find that the works breached [The tenant/s]’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premise and consider the claim for compensation.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages (compensation) that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a commonsense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party. Having regard to all relevant factors, I assess that an award of $600 is justified which equates to $25 per week for the six months.
In coming to this figure, I have taken into account that [The landlord’s representative] did follow up each complaint made by [The tenant/s] and compensation has readily been provided for the trades’ use of utilities. However, the period was lengthy, and the imposition great given the access issues and that the area of work was in the property’s front garden. The gardener
[The tenant/s] regularly contacted [The landlord’s representative] with concerns about the gardener. It was a condition of the tenancy agreement that he would maintain the gardens, so the tenants didn’t need to. However, [The tenant/s] reports that he did not do so adequately which meant that they got very overgrown, and she had to attend to it herself on multiple occasions which was detrimental for her health. 4 i.e. it did not amount to harassment
Further she says, he often would not give them notice that he was attending the property before he did, although he was supposed to give them 24 hours’ notice. They therefore felt very vulnerable as to when he would visit and kept their blinds permanently down to protect their privacy. [The tenant/s] gave evidence that with his actions and the trades’ presence she did not feel safe and felt she could never relax in her own home.
[The tenant/s] also submits that the gardener went into their garage on one occasion and used their ladder without consent and would often park in a way that obstructed their access.
There is also agreement that the gardener pulled out some of [The tenant/s]’s plants when he was not supposed to. There has been an offer to replace them which was not accepted. I consider an award of $100 compensation for the replacement of the plants justified in the circumstances.
I do not find any compensation justified for the work [The tenant/s] undertook in the garden as a result of the gardener’s failures 5 as there was no expectation by the landlord that she do so. I do accept her submission that her rent was supposed to cover a well-maintained garden and it did not. However, the best way to address this would have been to ask [The landlord’s representative] for more regular attendances by the gardener and if that failed, to issue a 14-day notice to remedy.
As stated above it is not an unlawful entry 6 for an agent of the landlord to attend the gardens of a premise without providing notice, although it is of course best practice to do so. I accept the evidence of [The landlord’s representative] that whenever she was notified that he was not giving notice, she would ensure he subsequently do so.
Accordingly, I do not find the actions of the gardener, although challenging for [The tenant/s], amount to a breach of section 38 of the RTA and as such this claim must be dismissed. The neighbours
This home is on a private road surrounded by three other homes. [The tenant/s] was told by two of the neighbours that the owners had asked them to keep an eye on her family and that they all had each other’s numbers so could keep in touch about the happenings in the neighbourhood ([The tenant/s]’s were not given this number). There were also several occasions when a neighbour let their displeasure at [The tenant/s] be known to them. 5 Which are established in evidence 6 Breach of section 48RTA
[The landlord’s representative] knows nothing about this, and the owners have not provided comment on what they told the neighbours. I therefore accept [The tenant/s]’s information as accurate.
There are benefits in a close neighbourhood which the owners undoubtably profited from when they resided there. It is not appropriate however, for owners to utilise that relationship to an extent that makes the tenants feel watched or monitored. It may be that this issue has arisen because of the way in which the neighbours exercised their ‘neighbourhood watch’ role rather than an active effort of the owners to make [The tenant/s] feel unwelcome.
It is an unfortunate situation which has cumulated, along with the actions of the gardener and the longevity of the sleepout works, to make [The tenant/s] feel that their privacy has been detrimentally impacted and that they could not relax in their own home. It was clearly an extremely stressful time, especially for [The tenant/s].
It has not been established that when [The tenant/s] raised the issue of the neighbours with [The landlord’s representative] that the neighbours were spoken to. This could have occurred. As I have found that the owners did ask the neighbours to watch [The tenant/s], I find this a breach of their quiet enjoyment. The owners have obviously said enough to the neighbours to create in them a sense of protectiveness over the house which was not appropriate.
I do not find it was likely done in an effort to intimidate them, therefore it was not an unlawful act, although it is a breach of section 38 of the RTA. I consider an award of $300 justified, taking into account the above-discussed principles. Other orders
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with their claims I reimburse the filing fee and approve their application for suppression.
The landlord also seeks suppression which I can only grant pursuant to section 95A of the RTA if a party is successful or if it is in the public interest to do so. The landlord has consented to a number of orders and has been successful in their defence to the quantum sought. Accordingly, I approve their application for suppression.
I do not consider it in the public interest, given the discussions surrounding the neighbours, to suppress the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4841342 — Tenancy dispute at 56 Awanui Drive, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4841342 — Tenancy dispute at 56 Awanui Drive, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions