What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4847161 about?

The tribunal order states: Michelle Ann Bullivant must pay [The tenant/s] $2,378.40 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4847161?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $38.40 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Use Of Tenant’S Power: $40.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Handyman Fee: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847161?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10202084-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4847161 about?

The tribunal order states: Michelle Ann Bullivant must pay [The tenant/s] $2,378.40 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4847161?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $38.40 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Use Of Tenant’S Power: $40.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Handyman Fee: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847161?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10202084-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

82 Brown Road, Tuakau, RD 4, Tuakau 2694 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4847161 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847161 — net $2,298.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,600.00		Rent arrears
Handyman fee	$80.00		Handyman fee
Compensation: Light bulbs		$38.40	Light bulbs
Compensation: Use of tenant’s power		$40.00	Use of tenant’s power
Exemplary damages: Breach quiet enjoyment		$3,000.00	Breach quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$1,500.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation: Cleaning at start of tenancy		$400.00	Cleaning at start of tenancy
Total award	$2,680.00	$4,978.40
Net award		$2,298.40
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,298.40

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847161 — net $2,298.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,600.00		Rent arrears
Handyman fee	$80.00		Handyman fee
Compensation: Light bulbs		$38.40	Light bulbs
Compensation: Use of tenant’s power		$40.00	Use of tenant’s power
Exemplary damages: Breach quiet enjoyment		$3,000.00	Breach quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$1,500.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation: Cleaning at start of tenancy		$400.00	Cleaning at start of tenancy
Total award	$2,680.00	$4,978.40
Net award		$2,298.40
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,298.40

Order

Michelle Ann Bullivant must pay [The tenant/s] $2,378.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Aleisha Goldsmith from Franklin Law, and the tenant by her daughter Leighana Campbell and son Reegan Moleta. The tenant, Allyson Moleta and her son Cole Moelata were present in the hearing.
The landlord sought legal representation as she resides overseas and Franklin Law had been involved with this dispute from the beginning of the year, prior to any applications being filed in Tenancy services.
The tenant sought her daughter and son to represent her as she suffers from anxiety and is very stressed by these proceedings. Leighana has been involved in this process from before the commencement of the tenancy. Cole and Reegan lived with their mother Allyson at the property. Background:
This was a fixed term tenancy commencing on 25 November 2023 and terminating on 25 November 2024. The tenancy agreement was signed on 16 November 2023 by Allyson and the previous property management company, Reliance Property Management Ltd (RPM).
The landlord signed an agency agreement with Reliance Property Management Ltd before the tenancy agreement had been signed by the parties. The landlord claimed to have relied on RPM to find suitable tenants, complete repairs to the property and ensure the property met the Healthy Homes Standards under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
For completeness, the tenant is not claiming that the property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards and there has been no evidence given in the hearing to suggest that.
The landlord claims to have contracted a cleaner to conduct a deep clean of the property before the tenant moved into the property. An invoice for $400.00 was provided to the Tribunal for cleaning of the property.
The tenant provided photographs of the poor state of cleanliness on the interior on the house, overgrown lawns and gardens and numerous nails and staples throughout the flooring of the house on the day the tenancy commenced. In addition, the tenant provided letters from Cameron McNeilage, Leighana Campbell, Henry Baverstock, Hayley Frear, Nicole Miell, Deanna Roberts, and Charlie Brockbank confirming that they saw the poor state of the property and had to help clean the property at the commencement of the tenancy. Cleaning costs (tenant)
The tenant seeks to be reimbursed for the cost of the cleaning and property maintenance at the start of the tenancy. The tenant, her family and friends claim it took days to get the property up to standard. As they did the cleaning themselves, they seek the cost of $400.00, the price the landlord quoted for the cleaning of the house.
The tenant complained to RPM at the start of the tenancy about the unclean interior, the overgrown lawns, gardens, lack of light bulbs throughout the house. The Tribunal was provided with an email from the tenant to RPM dated 13 December 2023 with photographs showing the nails and staples in the flooring, dirty house, clogged guttering that they water blasted, clean up of outside and lack of light bulbs.
I find that the property was not in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the start of the tenancy. I am compensating the tenant $400.00 for the cost of the cleaning at the start of the tenancy. Light bulbs
The landlord accepted at the hearing that the tenant show be compensated $38.40 for cost of replacing the light bulbs.
The landlord provided written submissions to the Tribunal on the morning of the hearing. In paragraph 6 of those submissions the landlord stated that RPM were instructed to hire a handyman to remove nails sticking out of the floor and repair the broken window before the commencement of the tenancy.
It was accepted by the landlord that these repairs were not carried out during the tenancy. Power Cost:
The tenant seek compensation for the power usage of the landlord. Th parties agreed that $40.00 was suitable compensation. Tenancy area
The most significant issue that must be determined in these claims relates to the areas that form the tenanted property. This is a semi-rural large property.
The landlord stated in submission, in paragraph 5 and 6, that RPM failed to follow her instructions on the nature of the tenancy. The tenancy according to the landlord was only to cover the house and immediate back yard around the house. The rest of the property would be for the use of the landlord from time to time. In particular the back section was for the sole use of the landlord where her motorhome is parked. That the driveway was shared and there was to be no parking in front of the back section access point nor the front lawn or orchard area.
These stipulations expressed by the landlord were never included in the tenancy agreement signed by the tenant and RPM. In the hearing the tenant expressly stated that she and her sons would never have entered into a tenancy agreement that allowed the landlord to reside in the back yard from time to time and sharing the driveway.
The tenant and landlord provided photographs of the property and the motorhome is parked only metres away from the back part of the house where Reegan’s bedroom was.
The landlord stated in paragraph 7 of the submissions that when the tenant viewed the property the front area, back section and front garage were all padlocked and not accessible. Therefore, says the landlord, it would have been evident that these areas were not included in the tenancy.
However, the tenant disputes that the areas were padlocked and gated off when she viewed the property. The padlocks and gates were put on when the tenancy commenced.
The landlord stated that she did not receive a copy of the signed tenancy agreement from RPM. She asked the tenant for a copy of her agreement after she arrived at the property in early January 2024. The landlord appears to be saying that RPM were wrong when preparing the tenancy agreement and she had not considered it appropriate to obtain a copy of the agreement before and after it was signed.
The landlord received a copy of the tenancy agreement on 16 th January, and she says she took immediate steps to vacate the property on 20 January 2024. I take this statement as set out in paragraph 16 of their submissions, as an acceptance by the landlord, upon this knowledge, that she was acting contrary to the tenancy agreement.
Regardless I find the tenancy agreement stated that the property was 82 Brown Road, Tuakau. I find the tenant had every right to expect the exclusive use of all the property at 82 Brown Road Taukau under the signed tenancy agreement they entered into with RPM, the landlord’s agent.
I find that the landlord did not have a tenancy agreement with the tenants that allowed her to reside from time to time on the back section of the property nor share the driveway.
The agency agreement ended between the landlord and RPM in February 2024. After the termination of the agency agreement with RPM, the landlord took over management of the property.
The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal on 29 February 2024 when negotiations with the landlord to end the fixed term tenancy failed. The tenant refused to accept a proposal from the landlord to settle the dispute as the landlord sought that a condition of the resolution was the withdrawal of the tenant’s application with the Tribunal. Tenant claim:
The tenant claimed the tank water was unsafe as it was dirty and there was no filter on the tank. That the back deck was rotten, window broken, dirty house at the start of the tenancy, lawns overgrown and gardens unkept. That the landlord has breached their right to quiet enjoyment, unlawfully entered onto the property. They seek the refund of their bond, reimbursement of their filing fee, compensation for light bulbs, water costs, and power used by the landlord.
In paragraph 11, 12 and 15 or this order, the issues of the initial cleaning, power usage and lightbulbs have been dealt with.
The remaining claims relate to water tank, back deck and stairs, broken window, breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry by the landlord.
Due to issues with the tenancy the tenant left the property on 21 March 2024. Landlord claim:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As this was a fixed term tenancy the landlord does not have to agree to the termination of the tenancy. However, the tenant stated that she had an agreement from RPM that the tenancy could be terminated due to the issues with the landlord. After RPM resigned as the property managers, the landlord and tenant began negotiations to end the fixed term tenancy.
The tenant realised after she filed her application that she could have come to the Tribunal to seek a termination or reduction of a fixed term tenancy.
However, both parties accepted that there had been a serious breakdown in the relationship and termination was the only sensible course available to all parties.
The landlord was seeking 8 weeks rent for the lack of notice to terminate. The tenant offered two weeks rent in lieu of notice. I consider that it is appropriate for the tenant to pay 4 weeks rent.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 March 2024 without appropriate notice to the landlord. I find that the tenant should pay the landlord 4 weeks rent, ($2600) in lieu of notice.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did leave the premises in an excellent standard of cleanliness and did remove all rubbish.
The tenant did return the keys.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Removing a trellis fence panel and replacing it with a new wooden fence ($300.00) -Removing a number of trees and gardens without permission ($700.00)
The Tribunal was provided with photographs of the garden and trees that were removed or cut back. At the start of the tenancy the property was clearly overgrown, as seen in the photographs provided by the tenant and the pre let inspection report from RPM.
One particular bush cut back by the tenant was blocking the pathway to the clothesline. The rose bushes were in amongst overgrown gardens and creating a safety issue for the tenant and her family in the garden. One overgrown rose bush had a large piece of tarpaulin caught up in it. The tenant says the rose bushed are regrowing.
The tenancy agreement allows for the tenant to have a dog at the property. The property was described as dog friendly. However, the trellis that the tenants replaced was apparently broken and could not contain the dog.
The tenant replaced the old trellis is a good quality wooden fence panel. The landlord wants this wooden fence panel replaced with a new piece of trellis.
The landlord has not provided any proof of the cost of replacing the old trellis panel nor the garden restoration. The landlord is unable to say how old the fence trellis and gardens were.
Therefore, I cannot consider the landlords claim for compensation for these items and I dismiss them. Handyman fee:
The landlord claims that the tenant would not allow a handy man to come to install new window handles required for maintenance. The landlord did provide notice to the tenant of this. The tenant says they did not fail to allow the handyman access to do the work. They were in the process of moving out and get held up in traffic and were a few minutes late getting home.
The tenant and the handyman cross paths a short distance from the property.
The landlord incurred the cost of the handyman’s attendance at the property. The landlord provided an invoice from the Handyman for $80.00 for the callout fee.
As the tenants did have notice, they should have ensured that some arrangements were made to have someone available to let the handyman in.
I find that the tenant should pay the cost of $80.00 incurred by the landlord. Tenant claim`- Unlawful entry by the landlord to the property s- 48 RTA
[The tenant/s] claims 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord arrived unannounced at the property on 31 December 2023, parked her car in the tenant’s driveway and stayed in a motorhome at the rear of the property for 3 weeks.
Immediately on the landlord’s arrival, the tenant and her sons asked why she was there. The tenant and sons advised that their tenancy agreement does not state that she is permitted to stay in the motorhome, use their driveway and exclude them from other parts of the property. Despite this advice, the landlord did not leave the property. She walked around the property, such as the front orchard area and driveway at will. The landlord used the driveway for her car and her visitors’ cars and demanded that the tenants move their vehicles parked on the property. The tenant said that on occasion the landlord and her friend would park in the driveway behind the tenant’s parked car, blocking them from leaving.
The tenant and her sons were told by the landlord to leave their vehicles and boats on the road outside the property.
The landlord made a large fire on the back property close to the tenant’s house. The tenant rang the fire department out of concern that the fire could spread to the house or trees.
On one occasion the landlord had a friend come onto the property without consent to take a photo of the replacement fence the tenant had put up. The photo was then sent to the tenant.
I find the landlord has 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.
There is no doubt that the tenant and her sons have been subjected to a lot of stress and anxiety due to this experience. They told the Tribunal that the landlord would not listen to them. They said the landlord would say that it was her property, and she would kick them out.
The landlord had an obligation to ensure when she created the agency agreement with RMP that her instructions were being carried out. Furthermore, she has an obligation to obtain the tenancy agreement from RPM or rely on the agency for the management of this tenancy.
The tenant and her family are at no fault and have been subjected to loss of money, distress, and anxiety. I find the behaviour of the landlord to the tenant and her sons to be outrageous.
I consider this breach of the RTA and the tenancy agreement to be at the high end and award the tenant $1500.00 in exemplary damages. Tenant claim – s38 RTA
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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, as I have determined, was unlawfully on the property for 3 weeks. During that time the landlord would engage with the tenant and her sons and use “belittling” language to them. One example from Reegan described the landlord telling him to “bugger off” and making comments about his youthfulness and lack of experience.
The landlord worked on the property all through the night causing noise and making bonfires. The landlord accused the tenant and her sons of “destroying her property” and demanding that they move their property off the section.
The tenant said the landlord would tell them she was going to “kick them out”. They said she would not listen to them, and it was “her way or the highway”.
When the landlord found out about the tenancy agreement she stated to the tenant and her sons “that it was her property, and she can do what she wants with it”. The tenant and her sons say that the landlord threatened to terminate their tenancy on a number of occasions.
I find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property and that she has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
Regardless of what the landlord initially thought about the tenancy agreement she came unannounced and laid down the law from the start. The landlord actions were extreme and caused significant trouble, worry and distress to the tenant and her sons.
I find the landlords behaviour to be extreme and I am awarding the tenant the maximum amount of exemplary damages available to me. Water tank
The tenant claims that the tank water was undrinkable. They say that the water smells when showering and is dirty. The tenant provided a photograph of water in a bucket with what appeared to be floating items of rust in it.
The tenant seeks $213.60 for the cost of bottled water used for drinking.
The landlord denies that the water tank is dirty and that the water is drinkable. The landlord provided a photo of the water that she says she took from the water tank.
Neither party was able to provide any evidence to suggest that the water tank was dirty or clean. I am simply unable to make that assessment based of the evidence, or lack thereof, regarding the water tank and I dismiss the claim. Back deck
The tenant claims that the back deck is rotten and provided photos of the deck. The photos do not provide me with any evidence that the stairs and deck are rotten, just weatherworn.
The landlord said, and it was accepted by the tenant, that no concerns had been raised regarding the status of repairs to the back deck/stairs.
I am dismissing that claim. Bond
The bond is to be refunded to the landlord for the outstanding rent. Filing Fee
As both parties were partially successful, I am not reimbursing either party their filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847161 — Exemplary damages at 82 Brown Road, Tuakau, RD 4, Tuakau 2694

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847161 — Exemplary damages at 82 Brown Road, Tuakau, RD 4, Tuakau 2694

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions