What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4874080 about?

This case concerned a 14-day notice dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4874080?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4874080?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4874080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11024603-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4874080 about?

This case concerned a 14-day notice dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4874080?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4874080?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4874080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11024603-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4874080 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video. A Korean interpreter also attended for the Tenant as requested since the previous hearing.

The matter was adjourned from the previous hearing to allow the Tenant to clarify their claims for compensation. They then filed 13 claims with voluminous evidence in support.

Whilst all of the evidence has been considered, only the relevant evidence has been referred to in these Orders due to time constraints.

The Tenant withdrew their claim for reconnection of the power at the hearing.

By way of background, this tenancy began on 16 April 2024 and was fixed to 15 October 2024. Tenants claims for compensation Breach of quiet enjoyment

The Tenant claimed the Landlord harassed her on 1 May 2024 by attending her workplace, being a shop and requesting rent. The Tenant submitted they were talking to a customer when the Landlord turned up, yelled at her in an “angry voice” saying “You did not pay rent yesterday”. She tried to explain her rent was paid but the processing time for her bank may have delayed the Landlords receipt. She stated she was extremely intimidated and shaken by the Landlord’s behaviour. There were two customers present who were also shocked at the Landlord and one customer provided a statement. That customer described the Landlord as having an “aggressive demeanour”.

The Tenant could not work or eat for the rest of the day and rang Tenancy services for assistance. On 4 May 2024, she reported this incident to the Police and filed this report. On 6 May 2024, she obtained a Trespass Order against the Landlord which was filed. On 13 May 2024, the Tenant visited their GP and filed a medical certificate stating she was stressed and anxious as a result of this incident and the ongoing issues with the tenancy.

The Landlord disagreed with the Tenants account of what happened. He went to the Tenant’s shop to address ongoing issues with the Tenant because she was being unresponsive to his emails and calls regarding a handyman appointment. She was also late on her rent shortly after moving in. The Landlord only lived five minutes from the Tenants workplace. He intended to discuss maintenance and the rent issues without any intent to intimidate.

He also questioned the objectivity of the Tenant’s witness supporting her version. The Landlord submitted "quiet enjoyment" pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) applies to the rented property, not her business location. They also had not been contacted by the police regarding her report of the incident.

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.

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.

In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not interfere with the Tenants use of the premises because he approached the Tenant at her workplace.

The claim is dismissed. Failure to provide safe and secure premises

Youngsin KIm claimed the premises was unsafe because a break-in occurred on 26 April 2024. She returned home to find black marks on the wall and a ripped jandal. On 27 April 2024, she wrote to the Landlord asking if she could move out because of the break-in that occurred and reported the incident to Police. There was no sign of forced entry so she assumed the intruder entered with a key.

She then requested that the Landlord change the locks, but he asked for more evidence of a break-in, suggesting she obtain CCTV footage from the building manager. The Tenant did not provide this evidence from the Building Manager.

The Tenant then changed the locks without informing the Landlord and sought compensation for the expense.

The Landlord disagreed they failed to provide a safe and secure property. They were surprised with the claim as there had been no prior security issues during the previous tenancy. He stated that the only other person with a key was the former Tenant, a nurse who had lived there for nearly three years and had no reason to return or commit a burglary.

To address her concerns, the Landlord suggested she contact the building manager to review video footage or reach out to the police. When she requested a lock change, he informed her that she would need to cover the cost, as he did not see a valid reason to assume this expense.

The Landlord believed he had taken reasonable steps to address her safety concerns and communicated clearly about the process and costs involved.

In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Landlord provided a secure property. There was no evidence from the Tenant that the door was faulty, the Landlord failed to maintain this, the Landlord provided access to other individuals or that the Landlord entered the property without her consent. There was no evidence of the Landlord’s motivation for doing so particularly at the start of the tenancy.

There was also no evidence to prove that the Tenant’s jandal’s were intact or that the blackmarks were absent on 25 April 2024 before the break-in occurred. The Police reports were based on what the Tenant had told them. They responded by advising her to take out a Trespass Order but they did not attend the property to investigate the break-in or speak with the Landlord.

For this reason, I find the Landlord did provide a safe and secure home and the Tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove this was not the case. Landlords harassment via email

The Tenant claimed $300.00 because the Landlord harassed her via email. On 16 April 2024, she sent the Landlord photographs of what needed repairing. She then stated the Landlord accused her of breaking the laundry door and shower door because he responded via email that, “we will pursue legal channels to recover the costs of repairs”.

On 28 April 2024, she sent a 14 day notice to repair the shower door, laundry door, door seal and roller blinds. This is 12 days after she moved into the property. The Landlord responded that he would send a handyman.

She stated that he sent a “lot of emails refusing to pay for the costs to repair such as the washing machine cleaning”. The Tenant contacted a lawyer who advised her the Landlord’s behaviour was harassment. The Tenant had been renting for almost thirty years and had never experienced this type of harassment before from a Landlord. She stated he only sent a Tradesperson in May 2024 once she filed her application to the Tribunal on 29 April 2024.

There was evidence to the contrary from the Landlord. There was a Landlords email of 28 April 2024 where he stated he would investigate the repair issues however he noted that the Tenant never raised any of the repairs during the initial inspection two weeks prior. The Landlord stated the previous Tenant did not raise issues about this either. The Landlord deposed that “if it is determined that you are liable for these damages, we will pursue legal channels to cover the cost of repairs”.

The Landlord submitted his emails were not harassing at all. He sent them solely to address ongoing concerns related to the tenancy, including maintenance issues, rent payments, and safety. He needed to maintain clear communication with Tenant to promptly resolve issues and ensure the property remains in good condition. He communicated his position via email but did not conceive this behaviour as harassment.

The emails were professional and focused on resolving specific issues or addressing concerns raised by the Tenant. There was no intent to harass or intimidate but to ensure both parties were aligned regarding the tenancy. He found it difficult to interpret his emails as harassment.

In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord’s email was not harassment at all. The Tenant has misconstrued the Landlord’s email, taken his words out of context and claimed the Landlord has blamed her for the damage.

The Landlord was merely advising the extent of his obligations in terms of the cost for repairs which is exactly what a Landlord should be doing. This is for the Tenants benefit because if it was found that these damages were caused by the Tenant, she would be liable for it. He was managing her expectations and stating his position but not threatening her.

There was also email evidence on 23 April 2024, showing the Landlord stating he was sending a tradesperson to investigate the front door seal issue. On 26 April 2024, the Tenant in an email complained about the roller blinds. The Landlord sent a Tradersperson for this promptly as well.

These emails are contrary to the Tenants submissions that the Landlord only sent a Tradesperson after she applied to the Tribunal. The Tenant needed to provide a reasonable amount of time for the Landlord to respond to her request for repairs and organise Tradespersons that sometimes cannot come within a few days. Instead, the Tenant sent a 14 day notice to remedy the repairs on 26 April 2024 after notifying the Landlord a few days prior of the repairs required.

The claim for harassment is dismissed. Failure to provide a washing machine in a reasonable state of repair

The Tenant claimed the Landlord failed to provide a clean washing machine, necessitating professional cleaning. On 26 April 2024, the Tenant emailed the Landlord, stating that their clothes had black marks and dust after being washed, suggesting the machine had not been cleaned in four years. The Tenant provided photographs of the dirty rubber seals and bottom of the machine, requesting commercial cleaning for hygiene reasons.

The Landlord submitted the Tenant significantly exaggerated the cost of cleaning the washing machine. Shortly after the tenancy began, she took several photos of the machine's interior, claiming it was dirty. The Landlord was surprised by this, as she had thoroughly inspected the property during the initial viewing.

The Tenant did not provide a quote in advance to the Landlord and later sent an invoice showing that the cleaner spent nearly three hours at $160 per hour. The photos suggested the tradesperson disassembled the entire washing machine, which the Landlord considered excessive and unnecessary, raising concerns about potentially voiding the warranty.

To resolve the issue fairly, the Landlord offered to pay $100, which he believed was sufficient to cover a reasonable two-hour cleaning at a rate of $50 per hour, adequate to address any cleanliness concerns.

Section 45 (1)(a) of the Act provides: The Landlord shall provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness

Upon reviewing the evidence, I find no justification for the washing machine requiring a deep clean by the Tradesperson. The cleaning cost of $460.00 nearly equates to the cost of a second-hand washing machine, making it unreasonable. The Tenant should have consulted the Landlord about the cost, and the Landlord should have communicated an upper spending limit

The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $100.00 for the cleaning of the washing machine if they have not already done so. Claim for failing to repair the defective roller blinds

The Tenant claimed $520.00 as a reduction in rent because of the defective roller blind. When the Tenant would pull the blind up, it fell down and the edges were worn. The Tenant reported this to the Landlord on 26 April 2024. The Landlord sent a Tradesperson to repair the blinds and they advised the blinds were too big. On 3 May 2024 however the Landlord emailed the Tenant advising the Tradesperson told him the blinds were functional. The Tenant provided a video to show the curtains were defective.

The Landlord stated that after reviewing the video from the Tenant, they still did not notice a malfunction. The Tenant first raised the roller blind issue a few days after moving in. The Landlord referred the matter to a tradesperson, who inspected the property while she was present. The Tradesperson reported that the roller blind was functioning properly during his inspection, and he left without any further complaints from the Tenant regarding the blind.

Since the inspection, the Tenant has not communicated any ongoing issues until recently, when she provided an updated video. Had she reported any problems earlier, the Landlord would have promptly addressed them The Landlord also sent her an email on 3 May 2024 confirming the Tradesperson had looked at all the issues she raised, however the Tenant did not reply and applied to the Tribunal instead.

Section 45(1)(b) states the Landlord shall: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes;

In reviewing the evidence, I find there was insufficient evidence from the Tenant that the blinds were defective or too big as the Tenant stated. I find the Landlord responded in an appropriate timeframe when the Tenant raised the issue by sending a Tradersperson within a few days. If the Tenant considered the blind was not working after this, they could have commissioned an independent blind expert to inspect the curtain and provide that evidence. Instead, the Tenant applied directly to the Tribunal. The onus is on the Tenant to prove their case and provide sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tenants application is dismissed. Tenants claim for the loose door seal

The Tenant claimed $250.00 for the front door seal becoming loose.

On 23 April 2024, the Tenant reported this to the Landlord. The Landlord sent a Tradesperson a few days after that. On 3 May 2024, the Landlord emailed the Tenant to confirm the issue had been attended to. The email stated the Tradersperson found the seal was not required for the door and it may have been caused by fair wear and tear as to why it was loose. They left the seal on the door as the Tenant instructed.

In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not provide evidence that the loose seal negatively impacted the state of repair or security of the property. They did not provide evidence of the loss this caused to the Tenant either. The Landlord attended to the repair within an appropriate amount of days.

The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim for chipped bathroom basin

The Tenant claimed $260.00 for a chipped bathroom basin which caused prolonged cleaning times for the Tenant. They reported this to the Landlord on 18 April 2024 and provided a photograph of a minor chip. They claimed $10.00 per week for the 26 week period.

The Landlord acknowledged the chip's existence however considered it a minor issue.

In considering the evidence, I find the chip was a minor cosmetic defect that did not affect the function of the basin, cause loss to the Tenant or cause the property to be in a reasonable standard of repair. I also find it implausible how the repair caused the basin to take longer to clean.

The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim for reimbursement of the front door lock

The Tenant claimed for reimbursement of the front door lock due to the break-in on 26 April 2024. On or about 27 April 2024, the Tenant emailed the Landlord stating the door rubber seal was found inside the property which she normally left outside the property. She also found black marks on the entrance doors and red lines on the inside of the bathroom door. She advised she would check with the Building Manager as to who entered the building. The Tenant reported this to the Police and advised the Landlord that the Police recommended she change the locks. The Landlord responded that the Tenant would have to cover the cost of a lock replacement because he did not cause the break-in. An invoice was then provided to show the Tenant replaced the lock however the Landlord was not advised the lock change had already occurred.

The Landlord disagreed with reimbursing the costs for reasons stated earlier at paragraphs 16-21. Again he submitted that he asked the Tenant to provide CCTV evidence from the Building Manager that someone had actually broken into her property but she did not provide this.

In considering the evidence, the Landlord is not liable for changing the locks because he did not fail to provide a safe and secure property as outlined in the earlier paragraphs 16-21.

The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim the Landlord failed to assign an agent

The Tenant claimed that the Landlord failed to assign an agent when they travelled overseas for longer than 21 days. The evidence the Tenant relied upon was from the Landlords request for an adjournment earlier on in the proceedings because the Landlord went overseas. During this time, she claims there was no Agent appointed.

The Landlord claimed the property is owned by his wife and he handles the daily maintenance issues. The Landlord was overseas for three weeks however his wife remained in New Zealand. The Tenant was aware that both the Landlord and his wife managed the property because they would attend the property together at times to conduct inspections and met with the Tenant at the start of the tenancy. The Tenants wife did not go overseas but remained in New Zealand.

The Landlord noted that Tenant has never had difficulty reaching them via email or cell phone during her tenancy from April to October 2024.A certificate of ownership was attached in support.

Section 16A of the Act states: (1) A Landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the Landlord has an agent in New Zealand. (2) A Landlord who does not already have an agent and who knows that he or she will be out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must appoint an agent before he or she departs from New Zealand (3) A Landlord who does not already have an agent and who has been out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must promptly appoint an agent. (4) A Landlord who appoints an agent under this section must, immediately after appointing the agent,— notify the Tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service; and if a bond is held in respect of the tenancy, notify the chief executive in the approved form of those particulars

In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord never left the country because his wife remained in New Zealand. The Tenant also did not provide proof that she attempted to contact the Landlord or was ignored due to the absence of an agent.

The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim for medical costs

The Tenant claimed medical costs of $750.00 due to attendances with her GP and psychologist as a result of the Landlords behaviour. She intended to travel overseas because her family were worried about her living situation. The Tenant provided a medical certificate which confirmed she suffered from multiple issues including increased vertigo, lack of sleep, anxiety, panic, liver pain and inability to eat properly. The GP wrote these conditions were triggered by the intrusive and harassing behaviour of the Landlord.

In considering the evidence, I find the medical certificate unreliable in terms of verifying the cause of Tenants medical issues because it relies solely on what the Tenant has told the GP. The GP did not have personal knowledge of the events and never spoke to the Landlord to ascertain his perspective. Her assessment of the cause of the Tenants illness was subjective and based entirely on the Tenants view.

I do not find the GP’s assessment of the Landlords character or actions fair or accurate.

Whilst I do not dispute the tenancy situation caused stress and distress to the Tenant, I do not consider the Tenants medical issues were caused by the Landlords behaviour. The psychologist notes also depose the Tenant is upset with the Tribunals decision.

The claim is dismissed. Landlord failure to notify the Tenant of the sale

The Tenant claimed the Landlord placed the house on the market in September 2023 without advising her when she commenced the tenancy in April 2024. She would not have signed the tenancy if she had known this was his intention. The Landlord told her after she signed the Tenancy Agreement that he would sell the property after the six-month term of the tenancy had ended.

The Landlord sent emails towards the end of the tenancy to the Tenant requesting access so he could hold property viewings to sell the property. The Tenant subsequently refused access citing health reasons and told the Landlord not to bother her but to email the court. She then reminded the Landlord of the Trespass Order against the Landlord. The Landlord offered to send an agent to attend the property.

The Landlord submitted they had not planned on selling the property until the end of the tenancy. The Landlord clarified that the property was never actually put on the market for sale. It was listed solely to gather market feedback on potential selling prices, allowing them to determine an appropriate price to work with their agent when they decided to sell. The Landlord stated that they never engaged an agent for the sale nor invited anyone to the property for that purpose. The TradeMe advertisement was strictly for feedback and did not include the unit number of the apartment, only the street address of the building, which contains many identical one- bedroom apartments.

Additionally, the Landlord stated that they clearly informed the Tenant on the first day she signed the tenancy agreement about the possibility of selling the apartment if market conditions improved within six months. This aligned with her intention to rent for only six months. However, as the residential market has not improved, they planned to continue renting the apartment after her departure in October.

When the Landlord emailed the Tenant about an 'open home,' they clearly stated that it was not for selling the apartment, but rather to show it to prospective Tenants interested in renting after her tenancy ends in early October 2024.

Section 47(1) of the Act states: (i)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. (ii)When a Landlord is offering residential premises as available for letting, the Landlord shall inform prospective Tenants if the premises are on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition.

In considering the evidence, I do not find the Landlord breached their obligations in not informing the Tenant. They placed the property on the market to gauge interest and agreed to honour the term of tenancy. They did notify the Tenant they were thinking of selling at the start of the tenancy. When they finally decided to sell, they informed the Tenant in writing and attempted to gain access for their prospective purchasers.

The claim is dismissed.

The Tenant has filed multiple claims today which mostly been dismissed. As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted and the Tenant shall pay their own filing fee.

Name suppression for the Landlord continues.