What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4856622 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Metro Otago Property Management Limited - As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4856622?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $73.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856622?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856622?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508750-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4856622 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Metro Otago Property Management Limited - As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4856622?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $73.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856622?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856622?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508750-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Derwent Street, Helensburgh, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4856622 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856622 — net $52.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to shower door handle as agreed	$73.03		Repairs to shower door handle as agreed
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$73.03	$20.44
Net award	$52.59
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$52.59

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Metro Otago Property Management Limited - As Agent For Laura Maxwell $52.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Metro Otago Property Management Limited - As Agent For Laura Maxwell: $52.59 [The tenant/s]: $1,747.41
The application by the tenant for further compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application by the landlord for further compensation of $1,725.32 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rescheduled hearing.
The Tribunal made an Interim Order on 11 April 2024 that the landlord pay to the tenant agreed compensation of $1,250.00.
In addition, the tenant was refunded $700.00 of the bond.
The tenants’ claim for compensation and exemplary damages was adjourned.
The landlord now seeks compensation, refund of the balance of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 6/2/2023 to 5/2/2024.
By agreement the tenant vacated before the end of the fixed term, on 1/1/2024. Landlord’s claim

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 landlord claimed compensation of $310.50 for lawns and garden work.
In support of the claims the landlord provided invoices and photographs taken during the property inspection on 21/12/2023.
On the other hand, the tenant submitted they had worked on the garden for over a week after the property inspection and believed they had done all the work required by the landlord.
The tenant provided photographs taken on 29 and 30/12/2023.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that they left the gardens reasonably clean and tidy, which is the standard required by the legislation.
The claim for compensation fails.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,487.85 as follows: a. $73.03 for repair of a shower door handle b. $664.82 for replacement of two glass door panels c. $750.00 insurance excess for replacement of a kitchen bench.
In support of the claim the landlord again provided invoices, photographs taken before the commencement of the tenancy and undated photographs taken in early January after the tenancy ended.
The landlord believed the damage was careless.
No insurance claim has yet been made for the kitchen bench.
In response, the tenant suggested that the damage to the glass in the door was wear and tear because it was due to the wind blowing the door shut which they had advised the landlord of.
Further, the tenant felt replacing both door panels had delayed the repair due to the age and colour of the glass.
In addition, the tenant thought the marks on the kitchen bench were due to wear and tear, taking into account the age of the bench.
Also, the landlord had not pointed out any damage to the bench in the inspection on 21/12/2023.
However, the tenant did agree with the costs of repairing the shower door handle and an award from the bond has been made for this.
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.
The landlord is required to establish the matters claimed to the civil law standard of proof, that is on the balance of probabilities.
I am persuaded that damage was caused during the tenancy to the glass panel in the door, but I consider the damage is fair wear and tear due to the wind.
However, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage to the kitchen bench occurred during the tenancy, or indeed that the bench needs replacing.
While it is possible the damage occurred during the tenancy, the lack of any evidence from the property inspection report of 21/12/2023 does not move this to a probability.
Moreover, the fact that no insurance claim has been made for replacement of the bench six months after the tenancy ended and new tenants have moved in, does not support that the bench needs replacing. Tenants’ claim Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises?
The tenant submitted that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises because of the way the assignment of tenancy was handled, lack of feedback and issues not dealt with promptly.
In response, the landlord agreed they could have handled the re-letting better and offered two weeks rent of $1,250.00 as compensation.
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.
Although the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises was affected by the way the assignment was handled, I am not persuaded that the behaviour of the landlord amounted to harassment.
Finding of new tenants to take over a fixed term tenancy is not necessarily straightforward and can be often misunderstood by the tenant who wishes to leave as soon as possible.
A landlord cannot unreasonably refuse to assign a tenancy but can attach reasonable conditions to the consent.
Deliberate prolonging of the process to wear out a tenant may constitute harassment, but there is no persuasive evidence to support this was the case here.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.

The tenant submitted that the landlord did not give the appropriate notice for showing prospective tenants the premises.
In particular the tenant was distressed by the owner’s mother turning up and taking pictures of their personal possessions.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that often prospective tenants wished to view the premises at short notice, and they endeavoured to provide several hours notice before any visits.
In the case of the owner’s mother the landlord advised they were aware the tenant had dealt with the owner’s mother several times but did not know she had attended the premises with the intention of taking photographs.
The landlord submitted when they became aware of this they obtained an apology about the photographs.
With the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to, among others, prospective tenants. See section 48(3)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Subsection (3A) provides a tenant cannot unreasonably withhold consent but can make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
I consider the amount of notice given by the landlord for what could be described as urgent visits was reasonable in the circumstances, for example when one prospective tenant was not in the City for any length of time.
Further there is no suggestion that the amount of notice given for other visits was inadequate.
While the distress caused to the tenant by the actions of the owner’s mother is understandable, I accept the evidence of the landlord that they were unaware she was attending and taking photographs and had subsequently obtained an apology.
I find there is no breach of section 48(3) and further compensation is not available to the tenant.
As the tenant has been partly successful with their claim for refund of their bond, I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted pursuant to section 95A to the tenant as I consider it is justified in the circumstances of this case.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856622 — net $52.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to shower door handle as agreed	$73.03		Repairs to shower door handle as agreed
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$73.03	$20.44
Net award	$52.59
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$52.59

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Metro Otago Property Management Limited - As Agent For Laura Maxwell $52.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Metro Otago Property Management Limited - As Agent For Laura Maxwell: $52.59 [The tenant/s]: $1,747.41
The application by the tenant for further compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application by the landlord for further compensation of $1,725.32 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rescheduled hearing.
The Tribunal made an Interim Order on 11 April 2024 that the landlord pay to the tenant agreed compensation of $1,250.00.
In addition, the tenant was refunded $700.00 of the bond.
The tenants’ claim for compensation and exemplary damages was adjourned.
The landlord now seeks compensation, refund of the balance of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 6/2/2023 to 5/2/2024.
By agreement the tenant vacated before the end of the fixed term, on 1/1/2024. Landlord’s claim

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 landlord claimed compensation of $310.50 for lawns and garden work.
In support of the claims the landlord provided invoices and photographs taken during the property inspection on 21/12/2023.
On the other hand, the tenant submitted they had worked on the garden for over a week after the property inspection and believed they had done all the work required by the landlord.
The tenant provided photographs taken on 29 and 30/12/2023.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that they left the gardens reasonably clean and tidy, which is the standard required by the legislation.
The claim for compensation fails.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,487.85 as follows: a. $73.03 for repair of a shower door handle b. $664.82 for replacement of two glass door panels c. $750.00 insurance excess for replacement of a kitchen bench.
In support of the claim the landlord again provided invoices, photographs taken before the commencement of the tenancy and undated photographs taken in early January after the tenancy ended.
The landlord believed the damage was careless.
No insurance claim has yet been made for the kitchen bench.
In response, the tenant suggested that the damage to the glass in the door was wear and tear because it was due to the wind blowing the door shut which they had advised the landlord of.
Further, the tenant felt replacing both door panels had delayed the repair due to the age and colour of the glass.
In addition, the tenant thought the marks on the kitchen bench were due to wear and tear, taking into account the age of the bench.
Also, the landlord had not pointed out any damage to the bench in the inspection on 21/12/2023.
However, the tenant did agree with the costs of repairing the shower door handle and an award from the bond has been made for this.
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.
The landlord is required to establish the matters claimed to the civil law standard of proof, that is on the balance of probabilities.
I am persuaded that damage was caused during the tenancy to the glass panel in the door, but I consider the damage is fair wear and tear due to the wind.
However, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage to the kitchen bench occurred during the tenancy, or indeed that the bench needs replacing.
While it is possible the damage occurred during the tenancy, the lack of any evidence from the property inspection report of 21/12/2023 does not move this to a probability.
Moreover, the fact that no insurance claim has been made for replacement of the bench six months after the tenancy ended and new tenants have moved in, does not support that the bench needs replacing. Tenants’ claim Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises?
The tenant submitted that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises because of the way the assignment of tenancy was handled, lack of feedback and issues not dealt with promptly.
In response, the landlord agreed they could have handled the re-letting better and offered two weeks rent of $1,250.00 as compensation.
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.
Although the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises was affected by the way the assignment was handled, I am not persuaded that the behaviour of the landlord amounted to harassment.
Finding of new tenants to take over a fixed term tenancy is not necessarily straightforward and can be often misunderstood by the tenant who wishes to leave as soon as possible.
A landlord cannot unreasonably refuse to assign a tenancy but can attach reasonable conditions to the consent.
Deliberate prolonging of the process to wear out a tenant may constitute harassment, but there is no persuasive evidence to support this was the case here.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.

The tenant submitted that the landlord did not give the appropriate notice for showing prospective tenants the premises.
In particular the tenant was distressed by the owner’s mother turning up and taking pictures of their personal possessions.
On the other hand, the landlord submitted that often prospective tenants wished to view the premises at short notice, and they endeavoured to provide several hours notice before any visits.
In the case of the owner’s mother the landlord advised they were aware the tenant had dealt with the owner’s mother several times but did not know she had attended the premises with the intention of taking photographs.
The landlord submitted when they became aware of this they obtained an apology about the photographs.
With the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to, among others, prospective tenants. See section 48(3)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Subsection (3A) provides a tenant cannot unreasonably withhold consent but can make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
I consider the amount of notice given by the landlord for what could be described as urgent visits was reasonable in the circumstances, for example when one prospective tenant was not in the City for any length of time.
Further there is no suggestion that the amount of notice given for other visits was inadequate.
While the distress caused to the tenant by the actions of the owner’s mother is understandable, I accept the evidence of the landlord that they were unaware she was attending and taking photographs and had subsequently obtained an apology.
I find there is no breach of section 48(3) and further compensation is not available to the tenant.
As the tenant has been partly successful with their claim for refund of their bond, I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted pursuant to section 95A to the tenant as I consider it is justified in the circumstances of this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856622 — Property damage at 8 Derwent Street, Helensburgh, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856622 — Property damage at 8 Derwent Street, Helensburgh, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord enter the premises without notice or consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord enter the premises without notice or consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions