What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877281 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4877281?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877281?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11380602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877281 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4877281?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877281?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11380602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4877281 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant and [The tenant’s partner] appeared. The tenant, and [The tenant’s partner] are a couple, and [The tenant’s partner] resided at the property. However, [The tenant’s partner] is not recorded on the tenancy agreement as a tenant, and there is no evidence of a mutual agreement between the parties that he be considered one. The landlord appeared. The landlord, tenant, and [The tenant’s partner] are all retirees.
The tenancy commenced on 05 April 2022 and ended on 13 February 2024. On 02 May 2024, the tenant filed and application, followed by a counterclaim by the landlord on 22 May 2024.
There was a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on 22 August 2024, after which the matter was scheduled for an in person hearing before me at the [Event location suppressed]. At the CMC, the claims made by each party were confirmed, and evidence directions made, which were only partially followed. The tenant provided the Tribunal with a USB containing photographs and short videos relating to one of the claims. At the hearing, the tenant also produced two photographs of a television aerial and showed photographs of the interior of the property on their mobile phone. The landlord produced photographs showing the general layout of the property and grounds.
The landlord’s claims are that: i. The tenant vacated the property without giving the required notice, ii. The tenant has made false accusations and used foul language against the landlord, iii. The landlord has been barred entry to the property.
The landlord is not seeking compensation.
The tenant’s claims are that: i. The landlord requested key money, ii. The landlord has failed to meet the Healthy Homes standards, namely: moisture ingress and drainage, draft stopping, insulation,
The landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, namely: i. Television aerial / satellite dish, ii. The stove, iii. Electrical wiring
The tenant is seeking a full rent refund from 05 April 2022 to 13 February 2024.
The tenant claims that the landlord has interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment. The tenant is seeking exemplary damages.
The onus of proving these claims rests with each applicant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case both the landlord and tenant must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Landlord’s claims
Regarding the claim that the tenant vacated the property without giving the required notice. The Act requires a tenant to provide a minimum of 28 days’ notice to terminate a periodic tenancy unless the parties agree otherwise. In this case, the parties appear to have agreed at the commencement of the tenancy that the tenant could give two weeks’ notice. At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant paid one weeks rent and a week in advance.
In 2023, the relationship between the tenant’s partner and the landlord appears to have become strained. The tenant claims they gave the landlord two weeks ‘oral’ notice during a meeting and ceased making payments for the last two weeks of the tenancy. The landlord denies receiving any notice. While notice to end a tenancy is typically in writing, it appears that neither party expected this would be necessary.
Importantly, the landlord states that despite there being no notice that there are no outstanding rent arrears owing. Given this, I am not satisfied that the tenant has breached their obligations, and in any event, there has been no financial loss suffered by the landlord. The claim is dismissed.
Regarding the claim that the tenant made false accusations and used foul language against the landlord. As stated, the relationship between [The tenant’s partner] and the landlord deteriorated. However, up until near the end of the tenancy, the tenant and landlord relationship appeared amicable.
Under section 55(1)(c) of the Act, a tenancy may be terminated if a tenant or someone at the property with the tenant’s permission assaults or threatens to assault the landlord or a member of the landlord’s family. Additionally, under section 55A of the Act, anti-social behaviour by a tenant or someone at the property with their permission may also provide grounds to terminate a tenancy.
Disputes arising between parties during tenancies are not uncommon. Ideally, parties will draw upon the provisions of the Act to resolve these disputes. A landlord who seeks to exercise their rights outside the provisions of the Act risks being found to have acted in a manner that interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. Short of assaults or threats of assault, there are no reciprocal obligations requiring a tenant not to interfere with the landlord’s quiet enjoyment.
Regarding the claim that the tenant has barred the landlord entry to the property. Section 48(1) and (2) of the Act provides that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy without the tenant’s consent or proper notice. A tenant who fails without reasonable excuse to allow entry after receiving valid notice commits an unlawful Act.
There is no evidence of any notice being given to enter the property or the tenant barring entry. The claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claims
Under section 17 of the Act, a landlord may not require key money without the consent of the Tribunal. This does not apply to rent in advance or bond payments allowed under the Act. There is no evidence that the landlord has required any additional payments they were not entitled too. The claim is dismissed.
The Healthy Homes Standards Regulations (The “HHS”) for this tenancy came into effect on 04 July 2022. The tenant claims the landlord has failed to meet the standards for drainage, draft stopping, and insulation, leading to excessive moisture and mould. The tenant has shown the Tribunal photographs from their phone which they claim show mould. The tenant concedes that the photographs are unclear. There is insufficient evidence to establish this claim, and it is dismissed.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. They must also investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a period which is reasonable in the circumstances.
The tenant claimed that during the tenancy they advised the landlord that the television aerial / satellite dish, was loose and noisy in the wind, but that nothing was done. The tenant states that early 2023 there was a significant weather event, and the aerial became detached. Despite advising the landlord nothing was done. [The tenant’s partner] repaired the aerial but states that it then failed to work properly. There was one inspection conducted which was covertly recorded by the tenant. While it is difficult to determine what exactly is being discussed, there appears to be a reference made concerning the aerial “being on the tenant.”
The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy the handle to the oven was broken and that one element could not be regulated. The tenant states that they raised this at the commencement of the tenancy but were dismissed by the landlord, who had recorded in the agreement, “All stove repairs tenant to do.” The tenant state they repaired the handle, but the element remained unresolved.
The tenant states that there was an issue with the switch to the hot water cylinder, and that the lights made a strange noise. The tenant did not raise these matters with the landlord during the tenancy.
The landlord states that they were not advised of any issue with the aerial until they visited the property to conduct an inspection in around February 2023 when they were advised that it had already been fixed. The landlord states the matter was not raised again. While they have recorded the statement about the stove in the agreement, which is contrary to their obligations, the landlord states that there was nothing wrong with the oven or the elements. They state they were not advised of any issues and the current tenants have not raised any concerns.
There is insufficient evidence to support these claims. The photograph of the aerial shows it attached to the roof. There are no photographs of the stove. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has been advised and then failed to respond appropriately. There are no 14-day notices issued, no letters, text messages or emails concerning these defects.
The mobile phone used to covertly record the inspection has been placed on a table in the kitchen and remains there while the tenant, without the male occupant, and both landlord’s move around the property. Not all of what is said can be made out. The conversation is therefore incomplete and unreliable. The claims are dismissed. Interference
The property was formally a small motel. It was built in the 1970’s. There are three two-bedroom bungalow units in a row facing the ocean. The tenant resides in a unit at one end. The landlord usually resides elsewhere, however, every six weeks or so, they travel to the area and stay for a few days in the unit at the other end. During these visits, they tend to the grounds. The unit in the middle remains empty. In between each unit, there is either a garage or a carport. Over Christmas / New year’s the landlord may sometimes stay longer. There is a shared driveway which leads from the road around the rear of the units. At the front, there is a lawn and gardens. There are no fences. Low hedges provide a border loosely defining the lawn area for each unit. The landlord maintains the lawns, hedges, and garden edges.
The tenant’s states the landlord had entered their lawn area to apply weed killer to the garden edges twice within four days, used their garden hose without permission, and had generally “loitered” outside the front of their property pretending to do work. The tenant also states that on or about 05 January 2024, the landlord had visited the property pretending to do work on the grounds, and during the visit had challenged and abused the tenant about rent payments.
The tenant states that during the inspection in February 2023, the landlord asked them if they had been the victim of domestic violence from [The tenant’s partner], something [The tenant’s partner] states interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. [The tenant’s partner] also states that he has heard the landlord making comments referring to the tenant as “those poor people.”
The USB contains four photographs. Two show the landlord walking away from the picture taker on a pathway leading to the tenant’s property. One shows the landlord holding a garden hose, and the other shows the landlord bending over a low retaining wall. They are undated. At the CMC, the tenant was invited to provide a chronology. One of the videos is the previously mentioned covert recording of the inspection. The other three videos appear to relate to an incident said to have occurred on or about 05 January 2024. Although similar to the photographs, the videos do not contain dates.
The first video has been taken by the tenant looking out the front window. The landlord is pouring liquid from a watering can onto the garden edges outside the neighbouring property and then the tenants property. [The tenant’s partner] can be heard yelling at the landlord through the window, stating that the landlord is trespassing, and that he will call police. The landlord appears to ignore [The tenant’s partner].
Another video shows the same thing happening, although it appears to be a separate occasion. Again, [The tenant’s partner] is yelling and remonstrating at the landlord.
Another video shows both landlords at the property, one is sitting at a table outside, the other is standing by the window. It is not clear when the video has been taken although it is likely on the same day as one of the weed killer events. Again, [The tenant’s partner] is heard yelling through the window. The tenant can also be heard speaking to the landlords. The topic of discussion appears to be rent. [The tenant’s partner] stated he believed that the landlord was initially unaware that the tenant was home, suggesting that the landlord’s actions had been aimed at annoying or provoking [The tenant’s partner].
Although not shown in the video, [The tenant’s partner] states that the landlord gestured with his finger for [The tenant’s partner] to come outside and “discuss” matters. [The tenant’s partner] stated that he declined, adding that he was a better boxer than the landlord.
The landlord stated he believed the hose was his, left at the front of the property, and that he had been working on the small retaining wall to the side of the tenant’s property. On both occasions he was unaware that his presence was disturbing the tenant.
The landlord states that while applying weed killer to the edges, he became aware that [The tenant’s partner] and the tenant were inside. The landlord stated that they applied weed killer to the garden edges about every six weeks and denied allegations that they had done it on consecutive days to annoy [The tenant’s partner]. Although there had been no discussion about using weed killer, the tenant had not previously objected. The landlord stated he finished applying weed killer and asked the tenant and [The tenant’s partner] through the window if they could discuss the rent payments, as they had been missed for two weeks. The landlord stated that the tenant advised they were moving out and withholding the last two weeks rent. The landlord stated that he was unaware of their giving notice. The landlord cannot recall how long they remained outside but stated they had moved away when the tenant threatened to call police. The landlord stated they went across the road and were speaking with a neighbour when the police arrived.
The tenant stated that the landlord had not moved away as described and was still sitting outside when the police arrived. [The tenant’s partner] states that the police officer had not been impressed with the landlord’s behaviour and had told the landlord not to go to the property until after the end of the tenancy, essentially “trespassing” the landlord. [The tenant’s partner] believed that a police incident report had been produced but later accepted that it had not, though a job number had been provided. [The tenant’s partner] stated that despite the warning, the [landlord] had visited the property on three or four occasions before they vacated. Law
Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
In Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.”
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 of the Act.
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.” Decision
Section 48(1) and (2) of the Act provides that a landlord shall not enter the premises during the tenancy unless the tenant consents or given proper notice. The term “premises” as defined in the Act, does not include the grounds. Therefore, a landlord is not required to give notice to complete lawn or grounds maintenance, providing they are responsible under the agreement for such maintenance.
However, while a landlord may be entitled to carry out the work, their conduct while doing so must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy.
Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances.
It is clear that [The tenant’s partner] and the landlord, particularly the male landlord, do not get along. They dislike each other. The relationship appears to have deteriorated further when the landlord asked the tenant, in the absence of [The tenant’s partner], if they had been subjected to domestic violence. Something at which [The tenant’s partner] clearly found offensive. [The tenant’s partner] also believes that the landlord considers themselves to be superior to the tenant, to which he also takes umbrage. Additionally, [The tenant’s partner] views the landlord as a liar and fraudster.
After reviewing the video’s there is nothing in the landlord’s application of the weedkiller supporting a claim that there has been an interference. There is no evidence that the tenant objected to weed killer being applied. On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has done so on consecutive days intending to annoy [The tenant’s partner]. I am not satisfied that the landlord’s inquiry about whether the tenant was a victim of domestic violence constituted a breach. The landlord appears to have been genuinely concerned. Once the tenant advises that they are not, the matter is not raised again.
From the video’s [The tenant’s partner] appears to be the one who is most agitated. The landlords do not appear to be the ones raising their voices. [The tenant’s partner] has also been emotional during the hearing.
Having applied the weed killer, a prudent landlord, who had been abused through the window, would under the circumstances, likely not have remained to then discuss the rent. However, I am satisfied that, as in the case of Smith v Floris, the root cause for these complaints is the fractured relationship between [The tenant’s partner], an occupant, and the landlord, rather than issues necessarily arising from the tenant and landlord relationship. For these reasons, the claim that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy is dismissed. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have been unsuccessful with their own claims but have been wholly successful defending the claims made against them. On that basis, I consider both are entitled to name suppression. I also order suppression of [The tenant’s partner]’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877281 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877281 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions