What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4857126?

The tribunal order states: Isles Construction Limited Annette Dahl must pay Kim Romana Paea and

How much money was awarded in case 4857126?

Property Damage: $2,700.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,560.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4857126?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4857126?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11001680-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4857126?

The tribunal order states: Isles Construction Limited Annette Dahl must pay Kim Romana Paea and

How much money was awarded in case 4857126?

Property Damage: $2,700.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,560.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4857126?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4857126?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11001680-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35B Rifle Range Road, Taupo, Taupo 3330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4857126 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4857126 — net $139.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,560.01		Rent arrears
General Damages		$2,700.00	General Damages
Total award	$2,560.01	$2,700.00
Net award		$139.99
Bond		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$139.99

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4857126 — net $139.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,560.01		Rent arrears
General Damages		$2,700.00	General Damages
Total award	$2,560.01	$2,700.00
Net award		$139.99
Bond		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$139.99

Order

Isles Construction Limited Annette Dahl must pay Kim Romana Paea and Donald McCorkindale $139.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3923322003) to Kim Romana Paea and Donald McCorkindale immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 October 2024. This was a rehearing of an earlier Tribunal order.
The landlord Isles Construction Limited, was represented by Tarsha Isles (“the owner”).
The tenanted premises are at 35 B Rifle Range Road, Taupo (“the premises”). The tenancy commenced on 14 January 2021 and ended on 3 April 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is particularly important where, as in this case, there is a conflict of evidence. It is for the tenant to prove their case. Where they unable to that, it does not mean that a party has not been truthful, it simply means that on the available evidence, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the claim was more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross- examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner. The tenants expressed strong feelings of disappointment and stress with how things evolved prior, during the course, and at the end of the of the tenancy.
The tenants’ claims for consideration are; • Failure by the landlord to give the tenant notice that the premises had been placed on the market for sale as soon as practicable. • Unlawful Entry by the landlord. • Breach of quiet enjoyment. • Exemplary damages where available.
The landlord claim is for rent arrears. Tenant claims Notice of sale
The tenant says that the landlord failed to give them notice that the premises were being placed on the market for sale, as soon as practicable.
Section 47 (“RTA”) provides; (1) If, at any time after entering into a tenancy agreement, the landlord puts the premises on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition, the landlord must, as soon as practicable, give written notice of that fact to the tenant.”
A failure by the landlord to give written notice as soon as practicable is an unlawful act. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00.
The important term in the section is “as soon as practicable.”
The tenant gave evidence of a number of what she considered to be, errors on the property managers behalf, leading up to the notice issue arising, including the giving of an invalid rent increase notice.
The tenant evidence was that she first received notice of the proposed sale by email dated 1 March 2024 from Renae Miller at Isles Construction. That email states “As agent for the owners and under section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, we advise that the property you occupy as tenant is to be placed on the market for sale...” The reference to s.40 RTA in the notice is incorrect as s.40 RTA refers to tenant responsibilities.
The tenant’s evidence was that she received a txt from Renae Miller about a related issue on 1 March 2024. Renae Miller asked the tenant if she had received her earlier email dated 21 February 2024. The tenant said no. Renae Miller asked the tenant to check her email spam box. The tenant checked her email spam box and informed Renae Miller that she hadn’t received anything.
The evidence of the landlord was that Renae Miller had drafted the notice informing the tenant of the proposed sale of the property on 21 February 2024. Renae Miller thought that she had sent the email to the tenant. When the matter was disputed by the tenant, it was discovered that the email, whilst it had been prepared by Renae Miller, had never actually been sent. The email had remained in the landlord’s property management system unsent. The landlord evidence was that the email, sent by them and received by the tenant on 1 March 2024 was the email that was to have been sent on 21 February 2024.
The tenant disputed this and said that if the email had been prepared and not sent on 21 February 2024, then the email which was sent on 1 March 2024 would have still had the earlier date on it.
The question for consideration is whether the landlord has given written notice to the tenant as soon as practicable.
Written notice to the tenant can only be taken as having been given by the landlord, when it was in fact sent to the tenant on 1 March 2024.

Was that notice of 1 March 2024 given as soon as practicable?

Having intended to give the notice on 21 February 2024, the notice dated 1 March 2024, cannot be said to have been given in writing to the tenant as soon as practicable. As a matter of logic, 21 February 2024 was a date when the landlord could practically have given notice, but failed to do so, despite their intention to do so. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act (see s.47(3) RTA).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, where 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 (s.109(3) RTA).
The word” intentionally” has been considered by the District Court. In Edmondson v Walls North Shore [1993] NZTT 548/92, 29 June 1993 the Court held that for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has intentionally committed an unlawful act, evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned their mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. It is not necessary that the party intended to act unlawfully, simply that they intended to commit the act or omission that amounts to a breach.
In other words, did the landlord turn their mind to not giving the tenant notice as soon as was practicable and then decide to not do so?
As indicated at the commencement of this order, the job of proving the claims is on the tenant. Has the tenant provided sufficient evidence to persuade the Tribunal that it more likely than not, that the landlord turned their mind to the issue of when to give notice to the tenant and decided not to give it at the time when it was first practicable to do so? I do not accept that the evidence takes me that far. I can see no motivation for the landlord intentionally refraining from giving notice as soon as was practicable.
I accept on the evidence that it has been an unintentional error on the part of Renae Miller. I simply have no evidence that the landlord has acted intentionally, nor what their possible motivation in doing so could be. The obligation being on the tenant to provide the Tribunal with sufficient evidence of the landlord’s intention, the application is dismissed. Unlawful entry by landlord
The tenant says that an agent of the landlord, namely Alisa Elsley (“Alisa”) a real estate agent with Westerman Realty Limited, unlawfully entered the premises on Tuesday 5 March 2024.
Section 48 RTA sets out the terms on which a landlord may enter the premises. In that section the term “premises” does not include the land or facilities. It is limited in this case to entry to the tenanted unit.
Section 48(3) RTA allows a landlord, with the prior consent of the tenant, to enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to any prospective purchasers. A tenant may not unreasonably withhold their consent and may make their consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
The evidence of the parties as to what occurred on 5 March 2024 and lead up differs substantially. I propose setting out the essential elements of the versions put forward in evidence. Tenant Evidence
As noted previously, the tenant only became aware of the intended sale of the premises on Friday 1 March 2024. Upon receipt of the notice the tenant asked for the contact details of the selling agent.
The tenant and the selling agent Alisa spoke. Alisa said that she wanted to carry out an “agent caravan” for other Bayleys’ agents on Tuesday 5 March 2024 at 8.30 am.
The tenant Kim Paea (“Kim”) made it clear to Alisa that access to the interior of the premises would not be available on 5 March 2024 as she needed to prepare for an important business zoom meeting to take place at 12.30pm that day. Alisa said that this would not be an issue. The adjoining unit was also for sale and was a mirror image of the premises. The agents could look at the adjoining unit and view the premises from the exterior. The only minor interruption expected by the tenant was an agreement with Alisa that Alisa would knock on the door as they passed by.
The proposal as set out above was acceptable to the tenant. For the tenant, the most key factor was that the landlord would not be entering the premises at any time on 5 March 2024.
The tenant was at home on 5 March 2024. The agents did not turn up at 8.30am for the “agent caravan” as arranged.
The tenant telephoned the agent’s office at 8.37 am and spoke to the receptionist. The tenant was told that Alisa was in a meeting. The tenant asked the receptionist to have Alisa contact her as soon as possible as she had expected Alisa to arrive at 8.30 am.
The tenant said that she missed a telephone call from Alisa at 10 am.
The tenant and Alisa spoke by telephone at 11 am. The tenant says that she said to Alisa that she had been expecting her at 8.30 am. The response was that Alisa didn’t want to intrude that early in the morning. The tenant said, “but that is what we agreed to.”
Alisa then said that she would turn up with the caravan that afternoon at
30 pm, but that they would only be viewing the exterior of the premises so that the tenant would not be disturbed. The tenant agreed to the proposal.
The tenant commenced her business zoom meeting. The meeting was conducted by Zoom video link in a room at the premises. At approximately 1.30 pm, whilst mid meeting, the tenant heard loud voices from the lounge.
The tenant stood up to go and investigate. As she approached the door, she discovered an unknown man standing in the doorway to her room. The tenant said, “who the fuck are you?” The man replied that he was there to inspect the rooms. The tenant told him to leave.
The tenant walked into the lounge of the premises. In the lounge were her husband, Donald McCorkindale (“Donald”) and Alisa.
Kim said that Donald was in hysterics. She tried to calm him.
Kim said to Alisa that they had not agreed to her coming inside and that she needed to leave immediately.
Alisa and the two men left the premises.
Donald provided a statement and gave oral evidence at the hearing. He explained that he suffered from anxiety issues as a result of post- traumatic stress resulting from his service experiences.
Donald said that he and Kim were at home on 5 March 2024. Kim was attending to a zoom video interview. At approximately 1.30 pm there was knock at the door. Donald answered the door. At the door was a lady and two men. The lady introduced herself and explained that she was the sales agent and that she was there to carry out a viewing. Donald replied that the viewing was supposed to have been at 8.30 am. Alisa told Donald that she had spoken to Kim and that they simply intended to walk around outside to view the exterior of the property.
Donald said that he then tried to close the door. Alisa pushed the door. This caused great concern to Donald. He said that he backed away from the door and held his head in his hands. He called out for Kim. Kim entered the room and the balance of his evidence was in accordance with the evidence provided by Kim.
The other attendee on the zoom video call being conducted by Kim was Stephanie Collins. Stephanie Collins was called as a witness. Stephanie confirmed that on 5 March 2024 she was involved in a zoom call with Kim discussing a commercial contract.
Stephanie Collins said that she heard a loud bang over her headphones which came from Kim’s end of the call. Kim abruptly stood up, removed her headphones and walked out of view of the video screen. The camera and sound had been left on.
Stephanie said that she could see some shadows moving. She heard a door open and Kim say “ Who the fuck are you? What are you doing here? Who gave you permission to be in here”?
She could hear raised voices for approximately 5 minutes, at which point it became quiet.
Kim returned to the zoom meeting. Stephanie Collins said that Kim appeared to be distraught and flustered. Kim asked Stephanie if they could continue with the call at a later time as her partner had an issue that she needed to attend to. Landlord evidence.
The owner said that there had been three property managers dealing with this property over the course of the tenancy, with Renae Miller having taken over in January 2024.
The owner agreed that there had been an error on their part in attempting to increase the rent. She said that within 18 minutes of their error being pointed out to them, they acknowledged the error and an apology was issued to the tenant. A further error was made in overlooking sending the initial notice to the tenant that the premises were to be sold.
Alisa made a statement and attended the hearing by teleconference.
Alisa said that she spoke to Kim on 1 March 2024 to introduce herself and to discuss the proposed 5 March 2024 meeting. Alisa said that she mentioned that she had a sales meeting at 8.30 am on 5 March 2024 and that afterwards the full sales team then usually went on a “caravan” to look at the new listings. Caravan viewings are never done in the afternoon unless they were out in the countryside. Alisa said that they would not need to look at the interior of the premise as they would be able to look at the neighbouring property that was also for sale and was a “mirror” of the premises. Alisa said that a 1.30 pm appointment was discussed. Alisa said that she did not have a key for the premises and Kim said as she worked from home this shouldn’t be an issue. Alisa later received a message from the property manager confirming that Kim had accepted the appointment times by txt message.
On 5 March 2024, Alisa attended her sales meeting. After the sales meeting she left the office. She noticed that she had missed a phone call from Kim earlier in the morning and so returned the call at approximately 11 am. Alisa said that during that call she said to Kim that there must have been a misunderstanding about the 8.30 am meeting, as it had never been her intention to turn up at 8.30 am. Alisa said she would be at the premises at 1.30 pm as scheduled. Kim agreed to that time and the call was ended.
The caravan viewing of the exterior of the property took place a little after 11 am.
Alisa said that she had some potential purchasers for the premises. They had been interested in the property when it had last been sold. Alisa made contact with them and arranged to meet them to view the premises on 5 March 2024 at 1.30 pm.
Alisa parked on the road side. She walked up to the door to the premises. She was alone at this point. She knocked on the door which was answered by Donald. Alisa had not previously met Donald. She introduced herself and said that she was an agent from Bayleys. She said that she was waiting for her clients and that when they arrived, she would return to look through the premises. She said that there was no response from Donald. Alisa walked away from the door and met with her two clients.
Alisa and the two clients returned to the front door of the premises and knocked.
Alisa said that Donald answered the door and seemed surprised at her returning to the premises. He appeared agitated.
Alisa said that Donald said, “Our guests have just arrived and the place is a mess.” Alisa indicated that this was not a problem as the clients wanted to look at the house to get an idea of the potential renovation costs in the event that they were to purchase the house.
Donald stepped back from the doorway. He did not shut the door. Alisa said that she was an experienced agent and that if the tenant had said not to enter or made to close the door she would not have entered.
Alisa and one of the clients entered the premises. From the lounge she could see all of the house .She said that they did not go into any of the rooms and did not recall the client with her opening any doors.
Alisa said that Kim or Donald said, “It’s not a good time.” Had Kim told her of the Zoom call, she could have rescheduled the appointment.
Kim came out into the lounge and asked Donald to calm down. She did not recall Kim asking what they were doing there. She had confirmed the viewing date and time by email with her clients on 1 March 2024. When questioned, Alisa said that Donald was fine and friendly when she spoke to him on the first occasion but that when she returned, he appeared confused as to why she was at the door for a second time and unfriendly. She said that Robert Davy did not open any of the interior doors during the visit and did not recall Kim telling them to leave. She said that it was Robert Davy who suggested that they leave. She said that if Kim had said “ who the fuck are you,” she would have remembered.
The two clients were Robert Davy and Keith Cammock. Both provided written statements but did not attend the hearing.
Robert Davy said that Alisa had contacted him on 28 February 2024 to see if he was still interested in the property. A viewing was requested by him for 5 March 2024 between 1.30 pm and 3 pm so that it would fit in with other commitments.
The clients both arrived at the property at approximately 1.30 pm on 5 March 2024. They met Alisa who said that she had already informed the tenants of our arrival. Alisa knocked on the door and the door was opened by the tenant. Alisa said that we were there to view the property and Alisa motioned us into the lounge. “ On entering the lounge and I received the negative response from the tenant so we left the unit and went onto view unit 1”.
Keith Cammock said that he had been contacted by Alisa on 28 February 2024. He asked for an appointment on 5 March 2024 between
30 and 3 pm .
On 5 March 2024 , upon arrival at the property Alisa said that she had already alerted the tenants that we would be coming.” She proceeded to knock on the door to unit 2 again to announce our arrival and we were greeted by a gentleman of somewhat surly disposition. Alisa introduced herself and asked politely if we may come in. He stepped back to let her in, and was asking someone, I assume his wife, in an adjacent room if this was ok. Because of his attitude, I elected to stay outside, while Alisa and Rob had a very quick look at what they could see from the lounge, and then left. At no time was any objection stated by the tenants, though it was fairly obvious they weren’t welcoming.”
Victoria Ireland provided a written statement. Victoria Ireland is a sales assistant with Bayleys. She said that on the morning of 5 March 2024 she was in a car with Alisa. Alisa telephoned the tenant on hands free. She was able to hear both ends of the conversation. Alisa apologised for the confusion about the viewing time earlier that day and said that the morning appointment was for the sales team and the afternoon appointment was for the buyer. Alisa asked “if the tenant was still happy for her to view the property at
30pm that day as they had prearranged. The client stated that 1.30pm that day would be fine and asked if they would be in the way or if she would be okay in her office working. Alisa confirmed that was no issue for her to be there and she wouldn’t need to be there for long.” Analysis
As indicated previously Section 48(3) RTA allows a landlord, with the prior consent of the tenant, to enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to any prospective purchasers. A tenant may not unreasonably withhold their consent and may make their consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
The sole issue for the Tribunal is whether the landlord had the prior consent of the tenant to enter the premises to conduct the viewing. The evidence from the respective parties conflicts. The evidence from the tenants and their witness was that no consent to the entry at 1.30 pm on 5 March 2024 was given. The evidence of Alisa and Victoria Ireland was that consent had been given. Whilst the evidence of Robert Davy and Keith Cammock supports that proposition, they were not able to give any direct evidence of what had been agreed to by Kim and Alisa.
The assessment of the truthfulness and reliability of witnesses’ accounts is a fundamental role of the Tribunal’s decision making. There is little common ground between the parties on the essential elements of what occurred. It is not a more common situation where a parties recollection of events can be called into question. The complaint was raised by the tenant almost immediately. Where such a conflict occurs and there is no direct video, audio or independent witnesses, then a tribunal must draw or decline to draw inferences from the facts of the case. Relevant considerations will be whether a witness was available to give evidence, whether their evidence was by way of a statement or whether they attended to give evidence and to be questioned.
Having taken the time to review all of the extensive documentary and oral evidence provided, the only thing that I am certain of, is that I cannot be certain what the truth is. Rather, I can only decide, and I am only required to decide, where I consider the balance of probabilities lies having regard to that evidence.
The key factual issue is of a reasonably narrow compass. Was consent given by the tenant or not? The manner in which the evidence was given essentially boils down to each side saying that the other is lying or at best, is substantially mistaken. Most of the witnesses, but not all, have a personal interest in the outcome.
The key point in time is the moment when the landlord entered the premises. Anything that occurred or may have been said after that may only add to the mitigation or aggravation of the entry. Evidence from Stephanie Collins is evidence of what has occurred after entry. Evidence of the two clients does not really advance the landlord position greatly, as they are unable to give evidence as to the tenant having consented or not to the entry.
The only tenant evidence relating to whether consent to the entry was given is from Kim. The landlord evidence on that narrow issue consists of the evidence from Alisa and the written statement from Victoria Ireland.
Often, when there is a conflict of evidence such as this, the Tribunal will look at a parties motivation for carrying out a particular course of action. In this case, I do not see that there is any particular motivation for either party to make the statements made if they were not true or at least believed to be true.
In reviewing the available evidence and attaching such weight as I can when considering whether the evidence has been supplied orally or by written statement, I find that Alicia as the landlord’s agent, held an honest, but mistaken belief that she had consent from the tenant to enter the premises to conduct a viewing for potential purchasers. The background to the tenancy shows that this would not be the first occasion where errors had been made by the landlord in dealing with the tenant. The tenant evidence has throughout been unwavering as to their understanding of the viewing process. I find that the landlord has entered the premises without having prior consent from the tenant. The landlord has committed an unlawful act (s.48(4) RTA).
The Tribunal may, where a landlord has committed an unlawful act under s.48 RTA, order the landlord to pay exemplary damages to a maximum of $1,500.00.
As noted previously in this order, where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, where 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 (s.109(3) RTA).
In this matter, I have found that the landlord’s understanding that they had consent from the tenant to enter was an honest mistake. I do not accept that tenant’s contention that the landlord was well aware that they did not have consent, but proceeded to enter in any event. I cannot see what possible motivation the landlord could have had to proceed on that basis. There having been no intention to enter the premises without consent, the application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant says that the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) RTA). 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 s. 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The events in this matter took place between 1 March 2024, when notice of the sale of the premises was first given and 5 March 2024, when the entry occurred. I do not consider that the landlord’s actions can be considered to be a pattern of behaviour, nor do I consider that they were sufficiently serious to amount to harassment as that term is defined. The application is dismissed. General Damages
In this order I have found that the landlord did not notify the tenant that the premises were on the market as soon as was practicable. I have found that the landlord did not have consent from the tenant to enter the premises.
The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award general damages (see Birch v Otuatahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667). In this case the factual matrix is such that the tenant has been harmed emotionally. During her evidence, the tenant expressed how upset and angry the events made her. Donald referred to a loss of mana. The landlord has apologised for any distress caused.
The Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (no2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors; ▪ The nature of the breach; ▪ The duration of the breach; and ▪ The effect of the breach on the party.
In Tenant v Ezy Rentals NZ Limited [2022] NZTT 4323927 the Tribunal helpfully set out “ bands” of damage awards. They are; • At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment; an award of $200 to $2,000. • Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, tension or anxiety; an award of $2,000 to $3,000.00. • At the upper end of the scale , where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation or fear an award of over $3,000.00.
I accept that the tenant was hugely upset by the events. The tenant has experienced inconvenience in having to end her business meeting, frustration, worry, anxiety and loss of dignity The events were not long lasting in duration. I consider that the emotional harm falls at the higher level of the second band. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant damages of $2,700.00. Rent Arrears
The landlord seeks $2,560.01 for rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 3 April 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary in support of the claim.
The tenant evidence was that they had left the tenancy early as they didn’t consider that they had been treated fairly by the landlord and no longer had any trust. Those are not grounds for withholding rent and the tenant is ordered to pay rent arrears of $2,560.01.
As both parties have achieved a degree of success, I make no order regarding the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression and accordingly no order is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4857126 — Property damage at 35B Rifle Range Road, Taupo, Taupo 3330

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4857126 — Property damage at 35B Rifle Range Road, Taupo, Taupo 3330

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was that notice of 1 March 2024 given as soon as practicable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was that notice of 1 March 2024 given as soon as practicable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions