What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4893080 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 4893080?

Compensation: Unauthorised sublettin…: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893080?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10923036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4893080 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 4893080?

Compensation: Unauthorised sublettin…: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893080?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10923036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4893080 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4893080 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: Unauthorised subletting	$750.00	Unauthorised subletting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$770.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4893080 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: Unauthorised subletting	$750.00	Unauthorised subletting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$770.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The landlord/s] name and identifying details.
Ratan Peruthagai, Abhinayaa Sree must pay [The landlord/s] $770.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Compensation: Unauthorised subletting$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$770.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$770.44

Reasons

The hearing was held on 1 October 2024.
Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr. Perunthagai and Ms. Premkumar are the tenants. Mr. Perunthagai addressed me in the hearing.
[Property manager 2] is the current property manager. Her company took over property management from the previous property company, [Property management company 1], on 1 May 2024.
[Property management company 1] managed the property between 13 November 2019 and 30 April 2024.
[Property manager 2] called a witness, [Witness 1], to support her application against the tenants. [Witness 1] was not the property manager responsible for the premises or dealing with the tenants. However, he was able to give evidence regarding the timeline and some of the general questions I asked. Introduction
This hearing involves a tenancy dispute between the tenants, Mr Perunthagai and Ms Premkumar, and the property owner, represented by the current property manager, [Property manager 2]. The dispute stems from the tenants’ alleged unauthorised use of the property as an Airbnb, breach of the tenancy agreement, and the tenants’ concern regarding maintenance and compliance with Healthy Homes Standards.
[Property manager 1], the previous property manager from [Property management company 1], had the day-to-day management of the property. [Property manager 1] was the point of contact before the management switched to [Property manager 2’s] company.
However, [Property manager 1] was unavailable to give evidence at the hearing. Instead, [Property manager 2] called another property manager, [Witness 1], from [Property management company 1], to testify about matters he is knowledgeable about.
When the tenancy commenced on 13 November 2019, Mr Perunthagai and Ms Premkumar were not the tenants named in the tenancy agreement. The named tenants were [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2].
Mr Perunthagai and Ms Premkumar moved into the premises in the second week of July 2021.
A variation of the tenancy agreement took place on 3 August 2021 where, by consent, [Tenant 1], was exited from the tenancy and Mr Perunthagai and Ms Premkumar became the named tenants. This is the first variation application.
A second variation of the tenancy agreement took place on 27 April 2022. By consent, [Tenant 2] exited the tenancy. Mr Perunthagai and Ms Premkumar were the only tenants as of 27 April 2022. Issues Raised by [Property manager 2] (Current Property Manager for the Owner) Unauthorised Use of the Property as Airbnb
[Property manager 2] claims that Mr Perunthagai used the property as an Airbnb without the owner's consent from 1 February to 30 April 2024. [Property manager 2] says the tenants breached the tenancy agreement and sought to terminate the tenancy under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). [Property manager 2]’s submissions
Unauthorised use: a. [Property manager 2] claimed that Mr. Perunthagai used the property as an Airbnb without the owner's consent from February to April 2024. She stated that the property was listed on Airbnb, and this use breached the tenancy agreement. b. The unauthorised listing was discovered when a friend of the owner found the property on the Airbnb website and informed the owner. This discovery occurred around mid-April 2024, though the use as an Airbnb could have started earlier than February 2024.
Direct Proposal to the Owner: a. [Property manager 2] pointed out that Mr. Perunthagai sent a text message proposal directly to the property owner in mid-April 2024, asking for permission to continue using the property as an Airbnb. b. This proposal was sent after the property had already been listed and used as an Airbnb, meaning the use had started without formal approval.
Breach of Agreement and Insurance Issues: a. The property was only insured for residential use, and using it as an Airbnb without consent could have voided the insurance, creating serious financial risks for the owner. b. [Property manager 2] argued that the tenants‘ actions constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement. Mr Perunthagai’s submissions
In relation to the unauthorised use of premises as an Airbnb, Mr Perunthagai gave the following sequence of events leading up to the removal of advertising on Airbnb: a. February to April 2024 He began listing two rooms of the property on Airbnb in February 2024. He claimed he needed financial support and sought to use Airbnb as a solution. b. Mid-April 2024 - Property Manager's Notice: Around mid-April 2024, the previous property manager, [Property manager 1] informed him that the owner had concerns about the listing on Airbnb. [Property manager 1] specifically mentioned that using the property for Airbnb could void the owner's insurance, and [Property manager 1] asked him to remove the listing immediately. Mr Perunthagai said in his evidence: “On the 13 April, [Property manager 1] emailed me advising me to immediately remove the Airbnb listing from the property, stating that if it wasn't removed, it could void the owner's insurance, and this needed to be remedied as soon as possible.” c. Attempt to Seek Consent: Following this, he did not immediately remove the listing. Instead, he called the owner directly to discuss the matter. He proposed that he would cover the commercial insurance costs required for Airbnb use. The owner, however, did not provide a definitive answer and expressed that she needed time to consider the situation. d. Text Message Proposal: After the phone call, he sent a formal text message proposal to the owner in mid-April 2024, again offering to pay for commercial insurance and requesting permission to continue with the Airbnb listing. e. No Response from the Owner: He waited for a response from the owner but did not receive any reply to his proposal. During this time, the Airbnb listing remained active. f. 30 th April 2024 - Removal of the Listing: It was not until 30 th April 2024, when he received a copy of the original tenancy agreement via email from [Property manager 1], that he understood he did not have permission to use the property for Airbnb. As a result, he removed the listing on Airbnb that same day. Mr Perungthaigai said in his evidence: “I told [Property manager 1] that I had not received or signed a part of the original tenancy agreement. I requested a copy so I could see my obligations, and it wasn’t until 30th April 2024 that I finally received it.”
Mr. Perunthagai says this sequence of events reflects the delay in removing the listing due to his attempts to secure consent and his misunderstanding about the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Formal Consent but Ongoing Discussions: a. While Mr. Perunthagai acknowledged that there was no formal written consent, he argued that he was waiting for a response from the owner, and that was the reason the listing stayed up until 30 th April 2024. He believed that since he offered to address the insurance issue, the matter was still under discussion.
Admission of Airbnb Use Without Formal Consent: a. Mr. Perunthagai admitted that the property was used as an Airbnb, but he stressed that he was unaware he needed consent before listing the premises.
Breach of Tenancy Agreement: a. Mr. Perunthagai did not explicitly deny the breach of the tenancy agreement but argued that his actions were a result of unclear communication between him and the owner/[Property manager 1] regarding Airbnb use.
Mr. Perunthagai further argued that he did not initially receive the original tenancy agreement. He argued that he was unaware of any specific clauses prohibiting using the property as an Airbnb. He stated that when the previous property manager, [Property manager 1], asked to sign a variation agreement, he was not given the original tenancy agreement, which would have clarified the rules around subletting or using the premises for short-term rentals.
He further explained that once he realised the Airbnb use might be in breach of the tenancy agreement, he tried to communicate with the property owner to resolve the issue. However, by the time he received a copy of the original tenancy agreement, it was 30 th April 2024, and he promptly removed the Airbnb listing. What remedies does [Property manager 2] seek?
[Property manager 2] is seeking compensation for the unauthorised use of the premises for Airbnb due to a breach of the tenancy agreement. Specifically, she is seeking an account of profits associated with this unauthorised activity, particularly because the property's insurance was only valid for residential use. The exact compensation amount she seeks has not been explicitly mentioned except for $56 per room per night on the Airbnb website.
[Property manager 2] is also seeking termination of the tenancy based on section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) because Mr Perunthagai breached the tenancy agreement – unauthorised use of the property without prior consent – and the breach is of such a nature or of such an extend that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Law
Section 44 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) governs the rules around subletting or parting with possession of a rented property. My summary of the key provisions: a. Section 44(1): A tenant cannot sublet or part with possession of the premises (or any part of the premises) without the landlord’s prior written consent, if the tenancy agreement contains a clause specifically prohibiting it. This means that if the tenancy agreement restricts subletting, the tenant must get the landlord’s permission before allowing others to live in the property or rent it out (such as for Airbnb). b. Section 44(2): If the tenancy agreement does not contain a specific clause prohibiting subletting or parting with possession, the tenant may sublet or part with possession with the landlord’s consent. The landlord can impose conditions on this consent, but the tenant is not outright prohibited unless those conditions are breached.
Therefore, Section 44(1) restricts subletting if prohibited in the tenancy agreement, while Section 44(2) allows subletting if there is no such prohibition, as long as the tenant obtains the landlord's consent.
Section 56 of the RTA allows a landlord to apply to the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy if the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement and: a. That the landlord must give the tenant 14 days' written notice to remedy the breach. b. That if the tenant does not remedy the breach within the 14-day period, the landlord can then apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy. c. That the breach must be serious enough to justify termination, meaning it must be a substantial breach of the tenancy agreement (e.g., damage to the property, non-payment of rent, or unauthorised use of the premises). d. That the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
In Nice Place Property Management Limited, the District Court confirmed that where a tenant has breached a clear term in a tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or unauthorised use of the premises, the landlord is entitled to recover the profits made by the tenant from the unauthorised subletting. This is known as an account of profits. The court held that this remedy is appropriate where the tenant has benefited financially from a breach of their obligations under the tenancy agreement.
In the case of Nice Place Property Management Limited, the tenant sublet the property on Airbnb multiple times without permission, and made a financial profit from it. The initial order from the Tribunal required the tenant to pay back the profits they made, but the calculation was incorrect. For instance, deducting the gross revenue received by the tenant for subletting the apartment from the rental the tenant paid for the entire period rather than deducting the rental the tenant paid for the days of unlawful subletting from the gross revenue the tenant received for subletting.
The District Court upheld the principle that it is appropriate for the tenant to repay the profits made from breaching the tenancy agreement but adjusted the amount to be repaid to a higher sum.
This ruling emphasises that tenants must adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreements, and landlords are entitled to reclaim any financial benefits tenants gain through breaches, particularly unauthorised subletting.
Accordingly, the legal principle established in Nice Place Property Management Limited is the availability of an equitable remedy of "account of profits" in cases where a tenant has sublet or used a rental property for profit, such as through Airbnb, without the landlord's consent. Application of the law to the facts.
Mr Perunthagai’s argument centred on the idea that, had he been aware of the restrictions outlined in the original tenancy agreement from the beginning, he would not have proceeded with the Airbnb arrangement without prior written consent.
I do not entirely accept Mr. Perunthagai’s argument that he should not be held responsible for breaching the tenancy agreement by subletting rooms without the owner’s written consent. My reasons are: Between February and Mid-April 2024 a. [Witness 1] confirmed there were two variation agreements executed. b. [Witness 1] also confirmed Mr Perunthagai signed both variation agreements. c. [Witness 1] did not know if [Property manager 1] provided the original tenancy agreement to Mr. Perunthagai when he signed the first and the second variation agreement. d. Mr. Perunthagai submitted [Property manager 1]'s email dated 30 April 2024, as evidence that he was only made aware of the original tenancy agreement's contents on the same date. e. While section 44 RTA prohibits subletting without approval, it is not a section that prohibits subletting completely. For instance, i. Section 44(1) RTA says the landlord “may” prohibit subletting and this prohibition is part of the tenancy agreement. ii. Section 44(2) RTA says “in the absence of” prohibition of subletting in the tenancy agreement, the tenant may seek written consent from the landlord. f. My view is that there is no evidence before me Mr. Perunthagai was made aware of the contents of the tenancy agreement (in relation to the prohibition to sublet without written consent) until [Property manager 1] contacted him about the listing on Airbnb. [Property manager 1] specifically mentioned that using the property for Airbnb could void the owner's insurance, and [Property manager 1] asked him to remove the listing immediately. Mid-April to 30 April 2024 g. [Property manager 1] approached Mr. Perunthagai and raised the owner’s concern was a notice to him that he was in breach of the tenancy agreement. h. Mr. Perunthagai approached the owner directly with an Airbnb proposal after [Property manager 1] asked him to remove the Airbnb listing immediately. This suggests that, by this time, Mr. Perunthagai was aware that he needed written consent from the owner to offer the property on Airbnb. In other words, by this time, Mr. Perungthagai knew that the tenancy agreement prohibited him from subletting the property without prior written consent. i. Even if Mr Perunthagai argued he received the original tenancy agreement on 30 April 2024, this does not mean section 44(1) RTA did not apply after [Property manager 1] asked him to remove the Airbnb listing immediately. j. The appropriate action would have been to remove the listing from Airbnb immediately after [Property manager 1] contacted Mr Perunthagai in mid- April 2024 rather than “work” on the assumption that there was no prohibition to sublet and seek written approval from the owner under section 44(2) RTA. k. In my view, Mr. Perunthagai was made aware of his obligation under the tenancy agreement when [Property manager 1] raised concerns with him in mid-April 2024. At the same time, section 44(1) RTA specifically prohibits Mr. Perunthagai from subletting unless written consent is obtained. Conclusion l. I am not satisfied [Property manager 2] has proved on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Perunthagai was aware of the prohibition to sublet condition under the tenancy agreement between February and mid-April 2024. m. I am satisfied Mr. Perunthagai was made aware of the prohibition to sublet conditions under the tenancy agreement between mid-April and 30 April 2024, which the parties agree is two weeks. n. I find the tenants committed an unlawful act without the landlord's prior written consent between mid-April and 30 April 2024.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Perunthagai contacted the owner directly to seek approval to continue subletting two rooms on Airbnb in mid-April 2024 after [Property manager 1] informed him of the owner’s concern.
Mr. Perunthagai submitted his proposal to the owner to support his intention of persuading the owner to give him written approval.
Although Mr. Perunthagai did not receive anything further back from the owner, he immediately removed rooms available for Airbnb upon receiving the original tenancy agreement on 30 April 2024.
Mr. Perunthagai’s action to remove the Airbnb immediately after receiving the original tenancy agreement does not suggest that he intended to breach the agreement.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied awarding exemplary damage is appropriate.

Is Account of Profits Available to the Owner?

In the case of Nice Place Property Management Limited, the landlord sought an equitable remedy because the tenant sublet or used the rental property for profit without written consent.
In the same case, the landlord provided evidence of Airbnb booking records showing that the tenant had sublet the premises without permission. These records also indicate the number of times the property was sublet and the associated profits.
[Property manager 2] stated that each room was rented for $56 per night in the application. However, there is no evidence from Airbnb records to determine the exact amount of profits made by Mr. Perunthagai between mid-April and 30 April 2024. It is not clear to me how many rooms were sublet and for how many days during the relevant period.
Therefore, I find that there is insufficient evidence to determine the exact amount of profits Mr. Perunthagai made during this period. Compensation for breach of tenancy agreement
[Property manager 2]'s client, the property owner, was deeply concerned about the use of her property as an Airbnb without written consent for the following reasons: a. Insurance Risk: The property was insured solely for residential use, and its unauthorised use as an Airbnb could void the insurance policy. If any damages occurred while the property was used for short-term rentals, the owner would be exposed to significant risks, including financial losses and liabilities. b. Financial Liability: Unauthorised commercial use of the property (such as Airbnb) could expose the owner to financial liability, especially if any incidents or accidents occurred while the property was rented out to guests. This could leave the owner liable for costs not covered by the insurance. c. Property Wear and Tear: Using the property for short-term rentals like Airbnb could result in accelerated wear and tear, which might lead to additional maintenance costs and decrease the property's long-term value.
The concerns [Property manager 2] raised on behalf of the owner were legitimate. The owner was so concerned that she felt her previous property manager did not act quickly enough. As a result, the owner changed the property manager to [Property manager 2] .
Although I find the breach was from mid-April to 30 April 2024, I acknowledge [Property manager 2]’s client must have felt very distressed until Mr. Perunthagai removed the listing from Airbnb.
Accordingly, I consider $750 compensation appropriate for the stress and discomfort [Property manager 1]’s client had to bear during mid-April and 30 April 2024.

Should the Tenancy be Terminated?

I understand [Property manager 2]'s concerns, but according to section 56 RTA, the tenancy cannot be terminated if Mr. Perunthagai has remedied the breach.
Mr. Perunthagai has addressed the breach by removing the listing from Airbnb. Since there is no further breach, section 56 RTA does not apply.
Accordingly, I dismiss the application to terminate the tenancy. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment for Neighbours
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) 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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A 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.
Flowing from the unauthorised use of the premises for Airbnb, [Property manager 2] alleged there were complaints from neighbours about disruptions caused by guests during February and 30 April 2024.
However, the complaint about the driveway being blocked was later crystallised as coming from Mr Perunthagai's next-door neighbour, [the neighbour]. [Property manager 2] argued that this breach of quiet enjoyment affected the neighbours' peace, which is a breach of the tenancy agreement.
I am not persuaded there was a breach of quiet enjoyment of Mr. Perunthagai’s neighbour. My reasons are: a. Lack of Concrete Complaints: There is no evidence or verifiable complaints from neighbours directly indicating that Mr. Perunthagai’s Airbnb guests disrupted their quiet enjoyment. b. Disputed Neighbour Testimonies: Mr. Perunthagai submitted statements from neighbours stating that they had no issues with him or the property. c. Insufficient Proof of Disturbances: The claim was that the next-door neighbour complained about her driveway being blocked. There was no evidence that the neighbour’s driveway was blocked on a regular basis.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the evidence conclusively showed that Mr. Perunthagai or his Airbnb activities directly disrupted the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours.
Accordingly, the claim under this heading is dismissed. Issues Raised by Mr. Perunthagai (Tenant) Breach of Healthy Homes Standards by not installing a heat pump.
Ratan PeruthagaI and Abhinayaa Sree claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Ratan Peruthagai and Abhinayaa Sree considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
Breaching 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).
Mr. Perunthagai claims the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards by failing to install a heat pump, which resulted in suffering through several winters without adequate heating.
[Property manager 2] called [Witness 1] to give evidence. Below is the summary [Witness 1] gave. a. Healthy Homes Compliance and Heat Pump Installation i. [Witness 1] asserts that under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was not required to install a heat pump until July 2025. ii. He says that the Healthy Homes Standards were met under the terms of the variation agreement signed by Mr. Perunthagai. b. In response to my question about the reason for signing a variation of the tenancy agreement instead of a new one, [Witness 1] confirmed that part of the reason was to avoid the immediate requirement to install a heat pump. By signing a variation, the landlord was able to extend the original tenancy agreement under which the Healthy Homes Standards did not require compliance until July 2025. c. This approach allowed the landlord to continue the tenancy without needing to meet the immediate requirements for installing a heat pump, which would have been mandated had a new tenancy agreement been signed.
In this case I have determined that there is no breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.
Accordingly, Mr. Perunthagai’s claim under this heading is dismissed.
In the hearing, I informed Mr. Perunthagai that he would need to seek advice from Tenancy Services if he had concerns about the high power bills due to faulty wiring. Leaking Garage
Ratan Peruthagai and Abhinayaa Sree claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of the obligations under section 45 RTA 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.
I find the landlord maintained the alleged leaking garage. My reasons are: a. Timely Repairs: The evidence indicated that the landlord or property managers ([Property manager 1] and [Property manager 2]) addressed the leaking garage issue in a timely manner after it was reported. [Property manager 2] stated that the garage roof was repaired on 20 May 2023, and there were no subsequent reports of ongoing leaks or issues after the repair was completed. b. Failure to Report New Issues: After the repairs were made, Mr. Perunthagai did not raise any further concerns or complaints about the garage continuing to leak. This lack of follow-up reports undermined the claim that the garage remained unusable due to leaks. c. No Evidence of Significant Damage: There was no evidence provided by Mr. Perunthagai showing significant damage to his belongings or proving that the leaking garage caused a substantial inconvenience after the initial complaint and repair. The claim lacked merit without supporting evidence of continued issues or damages. d. Maintenance Response by the Landlord: [Witness 1] acknowledged that Mr. Perunthagai had reported the leaky garage to the property management during his tenure. He stated that the issue had been addressed at that time with attempted repairs, which temporarily resolved the leak. However, there was no subsequent complaint or follow-up report from Mr. Perunthagai about further leakage after the initial repairs. Additionally, [Witness 1] said that the leaky garage was one of several maintenance issues raised, including concerns about gutters and plumbing, all of which were communicated effectively by the tenant. While the garage was repaired to the best of their ability at the time, [Witness 1] did not recall any significant follow-up or indication that the repair efforts were insufficient. [Property manager 1] demonstrated that the issue had been acknowledged and repaired as soon as it was brought to her attention.
Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord had not adequately addressed the issue in a timely manner and that there was no ongoing breach of responsibility regarding the garage.
Accordingly, Mr. Perunthagai’s claim under this heading is dismissed. False Neighbour Complaints
Mr. Perunthagai disputes the neighbours’ complaints about disruptions, claiming he has proof that they did not have issues with his conduct.
He seeks compensation for the stress and reputational damage caused by false complaints and the handling of the tenancy dispute.
I do not quite understand Mr. Perunthagai’s complaint because litigation means disruptions and stress. It is why he comes to the Tribunal to determine the disputes. In any event, my reasons for not considering this complaint further are as follows: a. Lack of Evidence: Mr. Perunthagai has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the neighbour's complaint was indeed false. Without credible proof that the complaints were fabricated or unjustified, the claim would be difficult to succeed. b. Reasonable Actions by the Landlord: The landlord, represented by [Property manager 2], was likely responding to the neighbour's complaint in good faith, which is reasonable for a property manager to do. Even if the complaint was later found to be unsubstantiated, it may not have been proven that the landlord acted maliciously or falsely. c. No Harm or Damage Proven: Mr. Perunthagai has not successfully demonstrated that he suffered measurable harm or damage due to the complaint. In the absence of evidence showing that the complaint caused reputational damage or significant distress, the claim for compensation might not have been justified. d. Neighbours’ Right to Raise Concerns: Neighbours have the right to raise concerns if they believe their quiet enjoyment is being disrupted. Even if Mr. Perunthagai felt the complaint was unfounded, responding to such complaint was part of the landlord’s duty and not an act of bad faith.
Mr. Perunthagai’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] have substantially succeeded in proceedings I grant their application for name suppression.
Because Ratan Peruthagai, Abhinayaa Sree have not wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings I decline their application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893080 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893080 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is Account of Profits Available to the Owner?

Should the Tenancy be Terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is Account of Profits Available to the Owner?

Should the Tenancy be Terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions