What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4878832 about?

The tribunal order states: Yoshiko Kume must pay [the landlords] $300.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4878832?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,540.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878832?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11179183-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4878832 about?

The tribunal order states: Yoshiko Kume must pay [the landlords] $300.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4878832?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,540.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878832?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11179183-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 21 Winchester Street, Merivale, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4878832 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878832 — net $300.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 September 2023	$1,540.00	Rent arrears to 6 September 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$300.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878832 — net $300.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 September 2023	$1,540.00	Rent arrears to 6 September 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$300.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.44

Order

Yoshiko Kume must pay [the landlords] $300.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlords are granted name suppression.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is refused.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears. The tenant asserts that the tenancy ended on 6 September 2023 when she vacated the premises, not on 27 September 2023 as claimed by the landlord.
The tenant claims compensation against the landlords for breach of their maintenance obligations, unlawful entry to the premises and breach of her quiet enjoyment. Rent
On 3 August 2023 the landlords served a 90-day termination notice on the tenant expiring on 8 November, on the ground that they intended carrying out substantial renovation work to the premises.
On 31 August the tenant informed the landlord in writing that she would be vacating the premises on 6 September 2023. She explained that she believed that the landlord’s termination notice allowed her to end the tenancy without notice at any time before the expiry of the landlord’s notice.
The landlords responded by informing the tenant that she must give at least 28 days notice if she wanted to terminate the tenancy and that they expected her to pay rent up to the expiry of the 28 days from her notice.
In one message to the tenant, the landlords said that were willing to accept short notice from the tenant. In the same message, they made it clear that they expected the tenant to pay 28 days rent in lieu of notice.
The tenant argued that the landlords had accepted her short notice and therefore they could not claim rent from her beyond the day that she vacated the premises.
I do not accept that. The landlords made it clear to the tenant that she had not given the required notice and that she was required to pay rent until the end of the 28-day notice period. Their choice of words in saying that they accepted the tenant’s short notice was unfortunate, but any reasonable person would have understood that it did not alter the landlords’ repeated stance that rent must be paid in lieu of the required notice. The landlords’ message indicated to the tenant that she could vacate early but she would still be liable for rent.
The tenant argued that the landlords had mislead her and that she had relied on their statement accepting her short notice. I do not accept that. I do not think that there was any reliance and if there was, it was not reasonable in the context of the messages at the time. There was, as well, no change of position by the tenant or any detriment to her. She had arranged to travel to Japan before she received the notice, and she had decided to end the tenancy and to vacate the premises before she received the landlords’ message about accepting short notice. Nothing the tenant did depended on whether the landlords required notice.
It follows that the tenant is liable to pay rent to 27 September and I have awarded rent arrears to the landlord on that basis. Maintenance
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
The tenant says that there were various things in and about the premises that the landlords were required to fix and failed to fix at all or to fix within a reasonable time.
They included a cracked pane of glass in an external partition and a shelf above the fridge that had no back to it.
The landlords said they knew nothing about the partition glass until it was raised in the hearing. Photographs showing the partition taken during the tenancy do not show any damage to it and the tenant did not produce any evidence to prove that it was damaged. There is no evidence that she complained to the landlord about it.
The landlords accepted that at the start of the tenancy they had agreed to put a back on the shelf, but it would take time to arrange, and they did not see as an urgent job. They said that the tenant did not press them to do it and it was done when the tenant left to spend some time in Japan in late 2021.
Even if the delay getting the job done can be regarded as a breach of the landlord’s obligations, and that is doubtful because it was an addition not disrepair and no time for it to be done was agreed, it would not warrant an award of compensation. The shelf could still be used and there was no evidence that the absence of a back on it caused the tenant any significant inconvenience.
The other repairs that the tenant complained about relate to chattels such as a sofa and chairs. The landlords did come to the premises to assess damaged chattels, and a claim for unlawful entry has arisen from that, but there is no hard evidence that the tenant was significantly concerned about the condition of the chattels. I therefore see no justification for an award of compensation in relation to them. Unlawful Entry
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The tenant claims that the landlords entered the premises unlawfully on two separate occasions. One was when the tenant asked the landlords to attend the premises to assess the damaged chattels and the other was when the landlords had arranged to come to the premises with a builder so that he could prepare an estimate for the work that the landlords intended carrying out to the premises.
In relation to the first occasion, the tenant had told the landlord that either she or her housemate must be at home before the landlords were permitted to enter. The landlords said that they understood that the tenant would be at home at the time they arrived, and they had not been informed differently. They had arranged the visit with the tenant and so they proceeded with it.
The landlords claimed as well that they had given the tenant notice that they would carry out a routine inspection at the time and they were therefore entitled to enter the premises whether the tenant or the housemate were present or not.
I am not convinced by the landlords’ second point. They used the word inspection, but that was after the tenants had asked them to assess the chattels and the tenant might well have assumed that they were referring to an inspection of the chattels. It was not made clear that it would be a routine inspection of the premises. But I also accept that the landlords may have intended it to be a routine inspection.
The landlords’ first point is reasonable. The landlords were entitled to believe that the tenant would be present and that she had authorised the entry. When they arrived and the tenant was not present, I find that it was reasonable for them to enter the premises assess the chattels that were in the premises and to inspect the premises.
It may be arguable that there was a technical breach by the landlord but in all the circumstances I find that the landlord acted reasonably, and no award of compensation or exemplary damages is warranted.
In relation to the second occasion, the landlords had arranged for their builder to attend, and the tenant consented to the entry. The tenant said that she was pressured to consent. I accept that the landlords were emphatic that they needed the builder to enter the premises so that he could prepare an estimate for the renovation work. I also accept that the tenant may have felt pressured to agree to. But I do not accept that the landlords coerced the tenant. She had a choice whether to allow the entry or not, and she allowed it. I cannot find that the entry was unlawful in those circumstances.
The claims of unlawful entry are therefore dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
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.
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".
The tenant claims that the landlords excessively trimmed trees around the premises to the extent that her privacy from her neighbours was diminished.
As I said in my previous order, landlords are entitled to trim the tress on the premises, and I think it would be an extreme case for the Tribunal to hold that the landlords unlawfully interfered with the tenant’s privacy by trimming them excessively. The landlords denied the claim and said that the tree trimming at no time reduced the tenants’ privacy below where it had been at the start of the tenancy. They pointed out that a neighbour had cut down trees on their property which exposed the premises but obviously the landlords have no responsibility for that.
This claim is bound to fail in any case because the tenant has not produced any evidence to show the extent of the tree trimming and how it affected her privacy. I cannot decide a disputed claim of this kind without independent evidence. If the tenant was concerned about it at the time, I would have expected her to make a formal complaint to the landlord or at least to take some photographs to record the situation that she was complaining about. It is too late now to make the complaint when there is no evidence to support it.
This claim must also, therefore, be dismissed. Other Claims
The tenant has made some general complaints about the landlords’ behaviour towards her. They include comments such as the landlords acted without compassion, unreasonably and without considering her wishes. She feels that the landlords were only concerned with their strict legal rights.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider such complaints nor any power to make orders in relation to them. The Tribunal can and does consider the reasonableness of parties’ actions but that must be in the context of their legal fights and obligations.
In this case, there is nothing in these complaints that invokes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and so it cannot consider them. General
I note as a general comment that there is little in the way of contemporaneous written complaints to the landlord regarding the issues that the tenant now raises. She sought to explain that by saying that she was concerned that if she complained, the landlords would give her notice to terminate the tenancy. That may be true, but it may also be true that these complaints are being made because the tenant was upset about being given notice at what was a very inconvenient time for her.
I acknowledge that the tenant was put in a difficult situation because the termination notice came when she was about to leave for Japan, and she did not intend to return until after the notice expired. That put her under considerable pressure of time. I think it is likely that has played at least some part in her decision to bring these claims. Result
The tenant is liable for the rent arrears. She is also liable to pay the filing fee because the landlords have been successful. The bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenant must pay the balance of her liability. Suppression
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful and the landlords have been successful, the tenant’s application for name suppression is refused and the landlords are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878832 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 21 Winchester Street, Merivale, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878832 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 21 Winchester Street, Merivale, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions