What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873681 about?

The tribunal order states: Anna Michal Hedley As Trustee For Away With The Faeries Trust must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4873681?

Compensation: Painting: $2,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873681?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10552274-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873681 about?

The tribunal order states: Anna Michal Hedley As Trustee For Away With The Faeries Trust must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4873681?

Compensation: Painting: $2,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873681?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10552274-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35C River Road, Ngaruawahia, Ngaruawahia 3720 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4873681 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873681 — net $3,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Painting	$2,750.00	Painting
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$850.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,620.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873681 — net $3,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Painting	$2,750.00	Painting
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$850.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,620.44

Order

Anna Michal Hedley As Trustee For Away With The Faeries Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $3,620.44 immediately.
All other claims made by either party are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of the cross applications held on the 5 July 2024. Background
The tenancy began on the 1 April 2021 and ended on the 1 February 2024.
The house is an old (circa 1910’s) 3-bedroom villa that the landlord says she relocated onto the property some 12 years ago. The tenant lived in the property with her 9-year-old son and partner. The tenant also had a dog which was permitted at the property.
The landlord says that her previous tenant Ms Forsyth had ‘left her in the lurch’ and referred me to previous Tribunal hearings TT 4295370 and 4301551. The tenant and the landlord were introduced through a mutual acquaintance who knew that the tenant and her partner were looking for a place and the landlord needed a tenant. The parties agree that the tenants went to the property to look at it, and they agreed to move in that day. The place was not ready to be moved into as it was not cleaned or tidied from the previous tenant, but the landlord agreed that the tenants could move in and clean the property in lieu of rent. The tenants say that the cleaning and tidying was in lieu of rent and bond. This is disputed by the landlord.
The landlord provided the tenants with an unsigned tenancy agreement on that day. The tenancy agreement provides that if the tenant painted the interior for the landlord then this amount would be reimbursed at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is a painter by trade, and it was agreed that during the tenancy she painted the kitchen, laundry/ shower room and toilet and hallway.
During the tenancy, the tenant admits that she fell into arrears and that she then brought the rent arrears up to date. The landlord says that the tenant was supposed to have her WINZ income redirected to her as rent but did not do that. The landlord says she would never have given the tenant the tenancy if she had known that the WINZ income would not be redirected. The landlord says that the tenants’ erratic payments 1 of rent caused her financial hardship.
In or about May last year the landlord put the property up for sale and notified the tenant who had first option to purchase the property. The tenant could not afford the property, so it went up for sale. The landlord said that she did not want to use an agent but thought that the tenants might be obstructive about open homes and marketing the property 2 and so she was forced to use an agent to market the property, causing her to incur commission costs. The tenants claimed that the landlord never told them straightaway that she was using an agent which they claimed was a breach of s47 RTA but that section does not require the landlord to inform the tenants immediately when an agent is appointed.
In any case in my observation of the interactions between the parties, I consider it helpful that an agent was appointed, as the agent became an intermediary 1 The landlord did not provide me with a rent summary for the 2021 or 2022 years, but the rent summary for the 2023 rent years showing rent was paid regularly, usually weekly from January to July when one payment was missed. 2 The landlord did not produce any evidence which supported this proposition. between the parties whose relationship was fast deteriorating. Both parties reported that they both got on well with the agent. The claims.
The landlord’s claims are: a) Rent of $5980.00 being 13 weeks at $460 per week from the 1 November to 1 February 2024. b) That the tenant failed to leave the premises on the 1 January 2024 as agreed.
The tenant’s claims are: a. That the landlord attempted to terminate with grounds. b. That the landlord reduced rent and then agreed to no rent being paid and reneged on those agreements. c. That the landlord has not given her rent credit for painting the property. d. That the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. e. That the landlord failed to comply with Heathy Homes standards. f. That the landlord failed to provide a signed tenancy agreement. g. That the landlord failed to provide healthy homes information when required.
Both parties seek compensation and exemplary damages (where applicable) in respect of each of the alleged breaches. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenancy was periodic and as it began on the 1 April 2021, which is before the date of the compliance for the Healthy Homes Standards (1 July 2025 for tenancies that commenced before the 1 July 2021). As there was no legal requirement for this tenancy to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards until the 1 July 2025, then the tenant’s claim for breaches of the standard fails and is dismissed.

Is any rent owing if so, how much?

The landlord has the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the rent owing is due. The landlord provided me with a copy of a rent summary from February 2023 to 1 February 2024. The landlord did not provide me with rent summaries or ledgers before that date.
The landlord says that the tenant owes $5980 because the tenant paid no rent from the date that the landlord gave notice 1 November 2023 to the end of the tenancy 1 February 2024.
The tenant says that the landlord agreed to give her free rent once the house was sold, she understood this to mean free rent for whole 90 days.
I have read through all the correspondence provided by the parties. There was considerable discussion between them about what rent would be paid during the marketing and the sale of the property.
The landlord says that she had to ‘bribe’ 3 the tenant with offers of a rent reduction during the marketing phase and the offer of 6 weeks rent free because otherwise the tenant would not have co-operated with the agent, and this would have impeded the sale. The landlord says that this ‘bribe’ was conditional on the tenant meeting her obligations as tenant including paying rent on time and allowing open homes.
The tenant says that the landlord consistently told her that she would have reduced rent over the marketing phase of $420.00 and then free rent after the property was sold.
I am satisfied, from reviewing all of the correspondence between the parties and listening to the parties’ submissions at the hearing that the landlord offered reduced rent ($420 per week) over the marketing phase of the sale (from the 30 July 2023) and then six weeks free rent at the end of the tenancy. I say that because: a. From July the landlord repeatedly offered reduced rent of $420 per week and six weeks free rent once the house had sold. This is repeated in the variation of tenancy agreement (20 July 2023) which was not signed by the parties and in various correspondence. The parties confirmed that from 30 July the tenant only paid $420 in week and the landlord did not query that payment from the tenant. I am therefore satisfied that the parties reached agreement and that the tenant paid $420 a week in reliance of the agreement. b. The landlord sent an email on the 1 November 2023 that said- the house is sold and “I am issuing this as a termination of tenancy, you have 90 days from today, so that makes it be the 1 February 2024. I will honour the agreement of the last 6 weeks being rent free, so from now until 21st December rent will be $420pw, I will keep it at open home rate ... and from then until feb 1 st rent free.” (sic) c. The tenant did not pay any rent after the 1 November. The tenant and the landlord got into a dispute about whether the agreement was that the tenant would have no rent to pay for the whole 90 days or just the last six weeks. 3 The landlord used this description twice when speaking to me at the hearing. on the 6 November the landlord purported to retract her offer to allow the tenant six weeks free rent and demanded rent be paid at the full rate until the end of the tenancy. d. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord agreed with the tenant to reduce her rent over the marketing period and to give the tenant six weeks free rent at the end of the tenancy. I consider that the tenant acted in reliance of those promise after July by the landlord by allowing open homes working with the agent, keeping the property to a high standard to be inviting to buyers. I also note that the tenant did pay her reduced rent regularly and it appears on time during this period.
The tenant was not entitled to more than six weeks free rent. The tenant did not pay rent for 13 weeks, she therefore was liable for rent for 7 weeks from 1 November at $420.00 per week (at the reduced rate) = $2940.00.
The tenant provided a rent statement which she says that she does not owe rent. That rent statement was difficult to read as well as it did not have the years in the date.
The landlord has only given a rent statement for the last year of the tenancy. She has not provided any rent ledger which shows the amounts paid after the tenancy ended, or any ledger that shows the rent paid before February 2023.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s record keeping was poor, and that she was unsure when rent had been paid to. At the hearing the landlord said that she had difficulty with her computer and thought she had uploaded previous years rent statements to this application. The absence of records from the beginning of the tenancy makes it impossible for the Tribunal to make an award in favour of the landlord for any rent owed, as the Tribunal cannot calculate what rent if any is owed from the documents provided. The landlord says that she has given the tenant a credit for the painting work already in the 2022-2023 rent, but this is disputed by the tenant. Without the rent ledger for that year, I cannot make a decision on what rent has been paid and is owed.
It is the party who makes the claim to prove the claim and the loss, the landlord knew that the hearing was going forward today and that was her opportunity to put forward her documents to the Tribunal. I also note that in a pervious application TT 42953070 and 4301551 in respect of a former tenant at the property, that the landlord submitted three different rent ledgers for the same period. My observation of the evidence in this case and the observation of the previous tenancy adjudicator in the landlord’s previous claims, is that the landlord’s record keeping was ‘confusing’, I would go so far as to call it shambolic.
As I do not have a full rent ledger then I cannot calculate what rent, if any, is owed by or to the tenant then I cannot make any award of arrears to the landlord. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears fails as it is not proven.

Does the landlord owe the tenant for the painting work?

The parties agreed in the tenancy agreement that the tenant would do painting work at the property and that the landlord would deduct this value from any rent owed at the end of the tenancy. The tenant completed painting work in the kitchen, dining, laundry and toilet room and hallway but did not invoice the landlord until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord says that she has paid for the painting by giving the tenant two week’s rent credit. As mentioned above the landlord did not provide a rent ledger which substantiated that she had paid the tenant. The landlord said in her submissions: I never agreed to anymore painting except the kitchen and bathroom in lieu of bond. The claims of what she painted are grossly exaggerated, no invoices or agreement and the amount to be what they owe in rent too convenient.
The landlord was unclear at the hearing by what she meant by being in lieu of bond. I consider that she may have meant that the amount owed for painting was a bond, that she would be able to offset against any claim that she may have had against the tenant at the end of the tenancy. I say this because this is the type of arrangement that the landlord had with her previous tenant and was censured for in those proceedings.
The tenant is seeking compensation for the painting of $5000, this equates to just under 11 weeks rent. The tenant says that she paid for all of the paint at cost and estimated that the time taken on the kitchen, which included preparation of all surfaces, ceiling, cabinetry and walls being 30-40 hours, the laundry (which I consider the parties refer to as bathroom) which includes the shower and toilet to be 50 hours and the hallway of 15-20 hours. The preparation work would have taken some time, the house is older and old paint work would have need to be sanded and or stripped and, in some instances, where there was a darker colour a number of coats and sealants applied. The tenant says that her hourly rate at work is $27.00 per hour. At an average of the estimates of time 35 +50 +17.5 =
5 hours @$27 per hour =$2767.50. This does not include paint.
The photographs of the property taken before the paint work and after speak for themselves, they show that the property was improved by the tenant’s work, and it is likely that the tenant’s work added value to the landlord’s asset, or at the very least made it easier to sell. I consider that the tenant should be awarded $2750.00 for this work, this includes the cost of materials.
The Tribunal is often given quotes for paint work, and the amount awarded would be considered reasonable for the nature and extent of the work done.
I have made an award of this amount in favour of the tenant, as the landlord has not proven that she has already paid the tenant for the paint work. Did the tenant agree to end the tenancy on the 1 January 2024 and refuse to leave.
I am satisfied that the tenant did agree to end the tenancy early on the 1 January in text messages n the 6 November 2023, where she told the landlord she would leave on that date.
The tenant should have left on that date, as per her notice given by text and the landlord was entitled to apply to the Tribunal for possession after that date but did not do so.
The failure of the tenant to leave on the 1 January did not nullify the agreement that the landlord had made of giving free rent until the end of the tenancy. The time from 1 January to 1 February has been taken into account when calculating the weeks of rent owed by the tenant.
I do not consider that the tenancy ended on the 1 January, as despite the tenant agreeing to leave on that date, subsequent communication between the parties shows that the tenant had altered her position and the landlord stance was also confusing, as she was not consistent in her communication. The proper action the parties should have taken at that time was to apply to the Tribunal for a determination of the tenancy end date.
In any case the tenant stayed to the 1 February, and I consider her tenancy on foot until that time.

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the agreement without grounds?

The landlord ‘s attempts to terminate the tenancy on the 1 January were valid, as the tenant had told in on two occasions that she would end the tenancy on that date. As noted above there was much confusion about what exactly the end date of the tenancy would be. The tenant’s claim that the landlord attempted to terminate the agreement without grounds fails and is dismissed. Did the landlord agree to reduce the rent and allow for 90 days rent free at the end of the tenancy?
This has already been discussed in paragraphs 15-21 above. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
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 tenancy landlord relationship can be fraught, and the Tribunal has previously determined that mere rudeness, or a brusque communication style is not enough to be a breach of quiet enjoyment See Mcintosh v O'Malley [2022] NZTT 4325097, 4326905
The tenant and landlord had a considerable amount of text messages over the period July 2023 to 1 February 2024, some of which did not shine either of them in a particularly favourable light, however I regard that the landlord’s words and conduct in these messages, which she herself described as “terrible’, at the hearing, was in excess of mere rudeness and brusqueness and constituted a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment because they interfered with the tenants peace enjoyment and comfort of the premises and the tenancy.
I consider that the texts and emails were harassment and therefore an unlawful act. The messages use considerable foul language were numerous, and sent at different times of the day, so as to interrupt the tenant, and at one point made a vague reference to having others threaten the tenant. The landlord continually refers to the tenant by a derogatory term and even when the tenant asks her to stop texting and calling her names she does not do so.
The landlord had a lawful means of resolving her dispute with the tenant which was to come to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is designed by only having a small filing fee to allow access to justice for tenants and landlords to resolve their disputes. A dispute as to when a current tenancy would end would have been given urgent hearing time and would have been resolved quickly. The Tribunal could have given the landlord certainty and clarity as to the date of termination. The landlord had a number of excuses as to why she had not used the Tribunal to resolve the dispute, but that was the proper means of resolving the dispute, not sending numerous expletive laden text messages to the tenant, forcefully restating her position, calling the tenant names and threatening her.
I award the tenant $850.00 for these breaches this takes into account: • The nature and extent of the breaches. • The continuation of the name calling and texts even after the tenant asked the landlord to stop, • The effect on the tenant and her family, the tenant said that was extremely stressed and upset over this period. She was worried for the safety of her and her family, she said she became anxious whenever she received a text. She had to seek help with a counselling service, and mental health practitioners to assist with her anxiety which was caused by the landlord’s behaviour. • The public interest, the landlord’s conduct fell well below the conduct of a person operating a business of providing a property for rent. It is in the public interest that when landlords overstep the mark that the Tribunal imposes an award that acts as a punishment for that behaviour and deters others from engaging in conduct of the nature. • That the tenant also used foul language in some of her texts and that in some conversations the tenant engaged in a ‘tit for tat’ conversation. Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with Healthy Homes information when requested?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
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 $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant asked for this information in June 2023, at some stage the landlord provided her with the report, but it was not clear when this occurred.
As I do not know the dates that the landlord gave the tenant the report, I cannot make a finding as to whether the landlord complied with the obligation to give the tenant the information requested and therefore this claim is not proven.

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a signed tenancy agreement?

The tenant also complained that the landlord had not provided her with a signed tenancy agreement. The landlord says that is because the tenant never signed the one the landlord gave her and did not give the landlord the information from WINZ. I do not consider that the landlord should be held accountable for not providing the tenancy agreement when the tenant had not signed it, and it appeared the parties had anticipated that other documents would be signed or provided at the same time. The tenant’s claim for the landlord not providing a signed tenancy agreement fails. Filing fee and name suppression.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed her the filing fee and granted her name suppression.
As the landlord has not been successful in her claim, I do not award her name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873681 — Exemplary damages at 35C River Road, Ngaruawahia, Ngaruawahia 3720

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873681 — Exemplary damages at 35C River Road, Ngaruawahia, Ngaruawahia 3720

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is any rent owing if so, how much?

Does the landlord owe the tenant for the painting work?

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the agreement without grounds?

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a signed tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is any rent owing if so, how much?

Does the landlord owe the tenant for the painting work?

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the agreement without grounds?

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a signed tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions