What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4869981 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application (4869981) is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4869981?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4869981?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4869981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10517055-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4869981 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application (4869981) is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4869981?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4869981?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4869981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10517055-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

70 Alford Forest Road, Allenton, Ashburton 7700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4869981 — State of repair

Order

The tenant’s application (4869981) is dismissed.
The landlord’s application (4892605) was withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 24 May 2024.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages and asked for work orders. I heard the tenant’s claims and the landlord response at the hearing on 24 May 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. I was going to hear the landlord application after the lunch adjournment. Shortly before the lunch adjournment, the tenant disclosed issues with her daughter’s health that it meant it was not appropriate to proceed with the hearing I adjourned the hearing and advised the parties that the landlord application would be heard by video on the next available hearing date.
The landlord’s application was scheduled for hearing on 26 June 2024 but was withdrawn on 25 June because the tenancy has ended.
The only claims for me to determine are the tenant application.
The tenant is required to establish its claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. Work Orders/Repair and Maintenance Obligations
The tenant claims that the landlord did not repair vinyl in kitchen, prune trees, or ensure spouting was repaired. The tenant wants the problem fixed. The tenant also wants the landlord to remove some black plastic stopper plugs from the jets in the spa bath.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or need for repair. See s40(1)(d) RTA.
The tenant raised issues with the flooring in the kitchen, claiming it was a trip hazard. She also said that trees weren’t pruned, spouting wasn’t repaired and had an issue with some stopper plugs in a pa bath (that does not function).
The landlord said that the vinyl was in good condition at the start of the tenancy and it has not been advised of any safety concerns. Nor did the tenant advise any issues with the spouting. The plugs in the bath a necessary to cap of the jets because the pump in the spa does not work, and is not being replaced. The landlord gave evidence that an arborist had pruned the tress and is scheduled to do so again later in the year.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its repair and maintenance obligations under s45 RTA.
Even if there had been a breach, the tenant did not put forward any evidence to allow me to assess an award of compensatory or exemplary damages. I would not have made a work order as the tenancy has now ended.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claim that the landlord has interfered with their right to 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 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 tenant claims that the landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment by insisting that pets are removed from the premises (even though they have been there for years), discussing the tenant with other property managers, and engaging in communication which was inappropriate and harassing towards the tenant.
Both parties provided me with extensive communication chains and evidence. I have reviewed all of the documentary communication between the parties. There is nothing in that which would lead to the conclusion that the landlord’s tone or manner is inappropriate or, in any way, constitutes a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Where a tenant alleges a breach of s38, something more than a breakdown in the relationship or disagreement is required. There is noting which can objectively be viewed as harassment by the landlord in this case.
There is no independent or corroborative evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted other property managers or discussed the tenant with them. The landlord said that it has not done so.
The tenancy agreement records that there are to be no pets at the premises. It is not a breach of the tenant’s right of quiet enjoyment to raise that with the tenant. It is a separate issue whether the no pet clause is enforceable in any particular case, but that issue did not need to be decided because the landlord withdrew its application.
For completeness, I record that the landlord included a newspaper article regarding the tenant, in its evidence. The tenant also viewed that as a breach of her quiet enjoyment. It was not. It was a document which is in the public domain and which the landlord believed was relevant to these applications. I find that the article was more prejudicial than probative and put no weight on it.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Order

The tenant’s application (4869981) is dismissed.
The landlord’s application (4892605) was withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 24 May 2024.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages and asked for work orders. I heard the tenant’s claims and the landlord response at the hearing on 24 May 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. I was going to hear the landlord application after the lunch adjournment. Shortly before the lunch adjournment, the tenant disclosed issues with her daughter’s health that it meant it was not appropriate to proceed with the hearing I adjourned the hearing and advised the parties that the landlord application would be heard by video on the next available hearing date.
The landlord’s application was scheduled for hearing on 26 June 2024 but was withdrawn on 25 June because the tenancy has ended.
The only claims for me to determine are the tenant application.
The tenant is required to establish its claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. Work Orders/Repair and Maintenance Obligations
The tenant claims that the landlord did not repair vinyl in kitchen, prune trees, or ensure spouting was repaired. The tenant wants the problem fixed. The tenant also wants the landlord to remove some black plastic stopper plugs from the jets in the spa bath.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or need for repair. See s40(1)(d) RTA.
The tenant raised issues with the flooring in the kitchen, claiming it was a trip hazard. She also said that trees weren’t pruned, spouting wasn’t repaired and had an issue with some stopper plugs in a pa bath (that does not function).
The landlord said that the vinyl was in good condition at the start of the tenancy and it has not been advised of any safety concerns. Nor did the tenant advise any issues with the spouting. The plugs in the bath a necessary to cap of the jets because the pump in the spa does not work, and is not being replaced. The landlord gave evidence that an arborist had pruned the tress and is scheduled to do so again later in the year.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its repair and maintenance obligations under s45 RTA.
Even if there had been a breach, the tenant did not put forward any evidence to allow me to assess an award of compensatory or exemplary damages. I would not have made a work order as the tenancy has now ended.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claim that the landlord has interfered with their right to 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 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 tenant claims that the landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment by insisting that pets are removed from the premises (even though they have been there for years), discussing the tenant with other property managers, and engaging in communication which was inappropriate and harassing towards the tenant.
Both parties provided me with extensive communication chains and evidence. I have reviewed all of the documentary communication between the parties. There is nothing in that which would lead to the conclusion that the landlord’s tone or manner is inappropriate or, in any way, constitutes a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Where a tenant alleges a breach of s38, something more than a breakdown in the relationship or disagreement is required. There is noting which can objectively be viewed as harassment by the landlord in this case.
There is no independent or corroborative evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted other property managers or discussed the tenant with them. The landlord said that it has not done so.
The tenancy agreement records that there are to be no pets at the premises. It is not a breach of the tenant’s right of quiet enjoyment to raise that with the tenant. It is a separate issue whether the no pet clause is enforceable in any particular case, but that issue did not need to be decided because the landlord withdrew its application.
For completeness, I record that the landlord included a newspaper article regarding the tenant, in its evidence. The tenant also viewed that as a breach of her quiet enjoyment. It was not. It was a document which is in the public domain and which the landlord believed was relevant to these applications. I find that the article was more prejudicial than probative and put no weight on it.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4869981 — State of repair at 70 Alford Forest Road, Allenton, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4869981 — State of repair at 70 Alford Forest Road, Allenton, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions