What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861484 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4861484?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861484?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10526110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861484 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4861484?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861484?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10526110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4861484 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants have claimed compensation, including $7,000 for stress. Before a party is entitled to compensation, they must establish a breach of the other party’s obligations. They must then show that they have suffered the loss claimed, because of that breach.

The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8] and [13], as follows: “[8] The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties... [13] The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as loss of quiet enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.”

Much of the evidence presented in this case was general complaint. There was little corroborative evidence provided by the tenants and little attempt to identify a specific breach of the landlord’s obligations.

I have attempted to identify possible heads of claim from the tenant’s submissions and evidence. The essence of the claim relates to an alleged unlawful termination of the tenancy. There are other claims relating to quiet enjoyment and maintenance. Termination of the Tenancy

The tenancy was for a fixed term to the end of March 2024.

The landlord sent an email to the tenants in November 2023, asking whether the tenants had given any thought to their intentions at the end of the tenancy, as some previous tenants had enquired and were interested in returning.

The landlord’s email was a reasonable, polite enquiry. The tenant replied within half an hour, advising that they would move since they weren’t wanted. The landlord apologised for any offence caused and reiterated; her email was just an enquiry. The tenant repeated that they would look for somewhere to live.

The landlord took that email as an indication that the tenant would move at the end of the fixed term. In January, the tenant then said that they wouldn’t move at the end of March. The landlord was confused by this as it had made other arrangements. It said it would not agree to renew the tenancy for a further term. The tenancy would have become periodic from 1 April 2024. See s60A RTA.

The landlord then gave notice of a rent increase, from the end of the fixed term to $700 per week. The tenant said that was more than the market and gave notice to end the tenancy on 2 March 2024 (before the end of the fixed term).

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant seems to claim that the landlord improperly terminated (or attempted to terminate) the tenancy. It did not.

There was nothing in the landlord’s email on 21 November 2023 which indicated an intention to terminate the tenancy. It simply, and reasonably, asked the tenant what its intentions were. The landlord then relied on the tenant saying it intended to move. When the tenant changed its mind, the landlord pointed out it had made other plans, but did not insist on termination. It did not agree to a further fixed term (and was not required to). The landlord also gave notice of a rent increase (in the correct form and with the correct notice), indicating the tenancy would continue.

At that point, the tenancy could have continued as periodic and, if the tenant had an issue with the rent increase, it could have applied to the Tribunal for a market rent appraisal. It did not. Rather, it gave notice to end the tenancy.

The tenant has not established any breach of the landlord’s obligations regarding termination of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Repair and Maintenance Obligations

The tenants raised a range of issues with the property including lightbulbs, septic tank, power supply, hot water, an ant infestation.

These issues amount to an allegation that the landlord has breached its obligations under s45 RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenant’s evidence was “scatter gun”, it claims were not supported by corroborative evidence and did not identify a clear breach by the landlord. The landlord provided evidence of work carried out, when requested by the tenants. Any claims regarding the condition of the property or the landlord’s maintenance obligations are dismissed.

I have considered issues with the power supply under this head. Power to both houses on the property is supplied to the tenancy premises. There is a sub- meter to the flat the landlord’s live in to allow them to assess the cost of their power. While it would be preferable for the power to be in the landlord’s name, and they seek reimbursement from the tenant, there is nothing inherently wrong with the way in which the landlord has calculated the power. It has been done in the way most beneficial to the tenants and the landlord meets all the fixed line charges. Any claim relating to the power is dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment

The tenants claim that 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 tenants claimed that one of the landlords walked in front of their windows periodically in underwear. The landlord disputes that. There is no corroborative evidence. The claim is not proved.

I have also considered whether the discussions regarding the end of the tenancy could amount to a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. But, again, the landlord’s communications are reasonable and polite. There is no objective basis for a claim that the landlord has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. Something more than a disagreement or falling out is required.

The tenant’s claims are in the nature of general complaint and dissatisfaction with the landlord. The application and evidence did not clearly identify any breach of the landlord’s obligations. As such, there is no entitlement to compensation.

The claims are dismissed.

As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The tenancy was for a fixed term to the end of March 2024.

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

The tenant seems to claim that the landlord improperly terminated (or attempted to terminate) the tenancy. It did not.

The tenant has not established any breach of the landlord’s obligations regarding termination of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Repair and Maintenance Obligations

The tenants raised a range of issues with the property including lightbulbs, septic tank, power supply, hot water, an ant infestation.

These issues amount to an allegation that the landlord has breached its obligations under s45 RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenants claim that 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.

The tenants claimed that one of the landlords walked in front of their windows periodically in underwear. The landlord disputes that. There is no corroborative evidence. The claim is not proved.

The claims are dismissed.

As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4861484 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4861484 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions