What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900833 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 4900833?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Power: $40.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900833?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10657700-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900833 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 4900833?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Power: $40.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900833?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10657700-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900833 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900833 — net $260.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation - breach of privacy	$200.00	Compensation - breach of privacy
Power	$40.00	Power
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	46. The tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings.
Net award	$260.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$260.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenants’ application raises issues relating to: a. Comments that Ms Milner allegedly made during a reference check phone call. b. Ms Milner issuing a notice of rent increase a few hours after a previous Tenancy Tribunal hearing. c. Compensation for the cost of power consumed by a water pump that is used for the landlord’s stock troughs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 31 July 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Milner represented the landlord. Reference phone call
[The tenant/s] were looking for another tenancy. They put Ms Milner’s name as a referee (along with others) on their tenancy applications.
[The tenant/s] said that they frequently received feedback that their applications were proceeding well until the reference check stage, at which point they were not accepted.
They began to get suspicious. They arranged for a friend of theirs to contact Ms Milner posing as a prospective landlord. I will refer to that person as “J” in this decision.
I was provided with a statement from J about that conversation. J states that: a. She asked Ms Milner specific questions about rent and about whether the tenants kept the premises clean and tidy, which Ms Milner responded to. b. Ms Milner then spontaneously said that [The tenant/s] were “not very nice tenants” and that they had taken her to the Tenancy Tribunal. c. Ms Milner also made unsolicited comments speculating about the tenants’ financial circumstances and stating that [Tenant 1] had “brain damage”.
Ms Milner disputes some aspects of this. She denies stating that [Tenant 1] had brain damage, but agrees saying that [Tenant 1] is (or was) “very sick”.
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
Consideration of what amounts to a reasonable privacy depends on the circumstances.
[The tenant/s] chose to include Ms Milner as a referee in their tenancy applications. There has been a history of tension and difficulties between them during this tenancy. [The tenant/s] must reasonably expect that a prospective landlord would ask Ms Milner questions about how the tenancy has gone, whether there are any difficulties, etc. A landlord is entitled to give their honest subjective opinion about those matters, even if the tenant has a different view.
However, the over-arching obligation to appropriately respect the tenant’s privacy remains. Although Ms Milner was not speaking with a genuine prospective landlord in this instance, she was not aware of this at the time. Her comments reflect what she thought was appropriate to say to prospective landlords.
My finding is that Ms Milner unreasonably breached the tenants’ privacy by commenting, without any need to, about the tenants’ financial circumstances and about [Tenant 1]’s health. To make matters worse, her comments were based on incomplete information and speculation.
Ms Milner’s comments were careless and inappropriate, but it was not her intention to harass [The tenant/s]. I will not make an award of exemplary damages 1 .
I will make an award of compensation. The incident caused unnecessary distress for [The tenant/s] , and it inflamed an already unpleasant situation. However, there is no evidence to show that Ms Milner cost [The tenant/s] any prospective tenancies. J was not a genuine prospective landlord. I accept Ms Milner’s statement that J’s call was the only reference check that she received.
I will award compensation of $200.00 Notice of rent increase
Ms Milner issued a notice of rent increase and a notice of inspection shortly after a Tenancy Tribunal hearing between the parties on 6 December 2023.
The notice of rent increase was issued within a few hours of the conclusion of that hearing.
[The tenant/s] main concern about the notice is the timing of it. However, they also argued that the new rent rate ($780) is above market rent.
The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to set aside a notice of termination if the Tribunal is satisfied that the notice was “retaliatory” 2 . Retaliatory means that in issuing the notice the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising a legal right, or raising a complaint about the tenancy.
That power only applies to termination notices. The Tribunal has no power to set aside a notice of rent increase on the grounds that it is retaliatory.
Provided that the notice meets the formal requirements 3 , it is valid and effective.
The notice issued to [The tenant/s] was valid and effective.
The Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent if the Tribunal is satisfied that the amount of rent charged by the landlord “exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount” 4 . 1 Section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 54 RTA 3 Section 24(1) RTA 4 Section 25 RTA
The tenant has the burden of proof to establish this. Usually this requires evidence such as an expert appraisal (or several appraisals) or significant amounts of data to establish the ‘market rent’ for the premises.
[The tenant/s] did not provide any evidence of that type.
It is not proven that the rent charged for this property exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. Power
Tenants only pay for power that they use 5 .
There is a water pump at the property that pumps water to stock troughs. The troughs are on grazing land retained by the landlords, not part of the tenanted premises.
The tenants were not aware of this arrangement when they began the tenancy. This issue was part of the tenants’ previous Tenancy Tribunal application. I made an order requiring the landlord to pay the tenants compensation for the estimated cost of power used by the pump 6 .
[The tenant/s] said that this issue became moot towards the end of last year when the owners removed the stock from the land. However, they brought stock back onto the land in April this year. [The tenant/s] say that this caused a noticeable increase in the power bills.
Their claim seeks compensation for power costs going back to 2022.
The previous order awarded reimbursement of costs up to 6 December 2023. That part of the tenants’ claim has been determined and it cannot be re-visited in this application.
The claim for power used by the pump from April 2024 to the end of the tenancy (23 July 2024) can be addressed.
[The tenant/s] seek $122.00 per month. In support of this they provided copies of their power accounts from March / early April (when there was no stock present) and accounts from May / June. The accounts show an increase.
The difficulty lies in assessing the proportion of that increase that is attributable to power used by the pump rather than other factors, the most obvious of which is the change from late summer / autumn into winter.
In the previous application the landlord was able to provide meter readings. The tenants disputed the accuracy of those readings. No readings were provided in this instance. 5 Section 39(3) RTA 6 [Tenants] v Contact Property Management Ltd [2023] NZTT 4691570
My previous finding was that the power cost equated to approximately $1.50 per week. The landlord reinstated compensation to the tenant on that basis from April 2024.
I have no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a standard household water pump, which are usually around 500-750w.
The average price of electricity per kWh in [Event location suppressed] is 23.13 cents.
Therefore, $1.50 represents about 8.5–13 hours of pump running time per week (depending on the wattage of the pump).
[The tenant/s] claim, which equates to approximately $28.50 per week, represents about 164-246 hours of running time per week.
There are 168 hours in a week.
Unless the pump is faulty, or there are leaks in the line, the pump should only run when the stock are drinking from the troughs.
In short, the information provided to me does not indicate that the amount of $1.50 per week is insufficient.
At the hearing [Tenant 1] said that in June there was another incidence of the pump running the tank dry after a leak. The previous time that this happened, the landlord made a one-off payment of $40.00. I noted in the previous order that is a substantial over-assessment of the actual power used, but the landlord made the payment willingly. Ms Milner indicated that the landlord would be willing to make the same contribution for this recent incident. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings. I will award the tenants the filing fee 7 . Name suppression is granted to the tenants 8 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900833 — net $260.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation - breach of privacy	$200.00	Compensation - breach of privacy
Power	$40.00	Power
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	46. The tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings.
Net award	$260.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$260.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenants’ application raises issues relating to: a. Comments that Ms Milner allegedly made during a reference check phone call. b. Ms Milner issuing a notice of rent increase a few hours after a previous Tenancy Tribunal hearing. c. Compensation for the cost of power consumed by a water pump that is used for the landlord’s stock troughs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 31 July 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Milner represented the landlord. Reference phone call
[The tenant/s] were looking for another tenancy. They put Ms Milner’s name as a referee (along with others) on their tenancy applications.
[The tenant/s] said that they frequently received feedback that their applications were proceeding well until the reference check stage, at which point they were not accepted.
They began to get suspicious. They arranged for a friend of theirs to contact Ms Milner posing as a prospective landlord. I will refer to that person as “J” in this decision.
I was provided with a statement from J about that conversation. J states that: a. She asked Ms Milner specific questions about rent and about whether the tenants kept the premises clean and tidy, which Ms Milner responded to. b. Ms Milner then spontaneously said that [The tenant/s] were “not very nice tenants” and that they had taken her to the Tenancy Tribunal. c. Ms Milner also made unsolicited comments speculating about the tenants’ financial circumstances and stating that [Tenant 1] had “brain damage”.
Ms Milner disputes some aspects of this. She denies stating that [Tenant 1] had brain damage, but agrees saying that [Tenant 1] is (or was) “very sick”.
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
Consideration of what amounts to a reasonable privacy depends on the circumstances.
[The tenant/s] chose to include Ms Milner as a referee in their tenancy applications. There has been a history of tension and difficulties between them during this tenancy. [The tenant/s] must reasonably expect that a prospective landlord would ask Ms Milner questions about how the tenancy has gone, whether there are any difficulties, etc. A landlord is entitled to give their honest subjective opinion about those matters, even if the tenant has a different view.
However, the over-arching obligation to appropriately respect the tenant’s privacy remains. Although Ms Milner was not speaking with a genuine prospective landlord in this instance, she was not aware of this at the time. Her comments reflect what she thought was appropriate to say to prospective landlords.
My finding is that Ms Milner unreasonably breached the tenants’ privacy by commenting, without any need to, about the tenants’ financial circumstances and about [Tenant 1]’s health. To make matters worse, her comments were based on incomplete information and speculation.
Ms Milner’s comments were careless and inappropriate, but it was not her intention to harass [The tenant/s]. I will not make an award of exemplary damages 1 .
I will make an award of compensation. The incident caused unnecessary distress for [The tenant/s] , and it inflamed an already unpleasant situation. However, there is no evidence to show that Ms Milner cost [The tenant/s] any prospective tenancies. J was not a genuine prospective landlord. I accept Ms Milner’s statement that J’s call was the only reference check that she received.
I will award compensation of $200.00 Notice of rent increase
Ms Milner issued a notice of rent increase and a notice of inspection shortly after a Tenancy Tribunal hearing between the parties on 6 December 2023.
The notice of rent increase was issued within a few hours of the conclusion of that hearing.
[The tenant/s] main concern about the notice is the timing of it. However, they also argued that the new rent rate ($780) is above market rent.
The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to set aside a notice of termination if the Tribunal is satisfied that the notice was “retaliatory” 2 . Retaliatory means that in issuing the notice the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising a legal right, or raising a complaint about the tenancy.
That power only applies to termination notices. The Tribunal has no power to set aside a notice of rent increase on the grounds that it is retaliatory.
Provided that the notice meets the formal requirements 3 , it is valid and effective.
The notice issued to [The tenant/s] was valid and effective.
The Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent if the Tribunal is satisfied that the amount of rent charged by the landlord “exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount” 4 . 1 Section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 54 RTA 3 Section 24(1) RTA 4 Section 25 RTA
The tenant has the burden of proof to establish this. Usually this requires evidence such as an expert appraisal (or several appraisals) or significant amounts of data to establish the ‘market rent’ for the premises.
[The tenant/s] did not provide any evidence of that type.
It is not proven that the rent charged for this property exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. Power
Tenants only pay for power that they use 5 .
There is a water pump at the property that pumps water to stock troughs. The troughs are on grazing land retained by the landlords, not part of the tenanted premises.
The tenants were not aware of this arrangement when they began the tenancy. This issue was part of the tenants’ previous Tenancy Tribunal application. I made an order requiring the landlord to pay the tenants compensation for the estimated cost of power used by the pump 6 .
[The tenant/s] said that this issue became moot towards the end of last year when the owners removed the stock from the land. However, they brought stock back onto the land in April this year. [The tenant/s] say that this caused a noticeable increase in the power bills.
Their claim seeks compensation for power costs going back to 2022.
The previous order awarded reimbursement of costs up to 6 December 2023. That part of the tenants’ claim has been determined and it cannot be re-visited in this application.
The claim for power used by the pump from April 2024 to the end of the tenancy (23 July 2024) can be addressed.
[The tenant/s] seek $122.00 per month. In support of this they provided copies of their power accounts from March / early April (when there was no stock present) and accounts from May / June. The accounts show an increase.
The difficulty lies in assessing the proportion of that increase that is attributable to power used by the pump rather than other factors, the most obvious of which is the change from late summer / autumn into winter.
In the previous application the landlord was able to provide meter readings. The tenants disputed the accuracy of those readings. No readings were provided in this instance. 5 Section 39(3) RTA 6 [Tenants] v Contact Property Management Ltd [2023] NZTT 4691570
My previous finding was that the power cost equated to approximately $1.50 per week. The landlord reinstated compensation to the tenant on that basis from April 2024.
I have no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a standard household water pump, which are usually around 500-750w.
The average price of electricity per kWh in [Event location suppressed] is 23.13 cents.
Therefore, $1.50 represents about 8.5–13 hours of pump running time per week (depending on the wattage of the pump).
[The tenant/s] claim, which equates to approximately $28.50 per week, represents about 164-246 hours of running time per week.
There are 168 hours in a week.
Unless the pump is faulty, or there are leaks in the line, the pump should only run when the stock are drinking from the troughs.
In short, the information provided to me does not indicate that the amount of $1.50 per week is insufficient.
At the hearing [Tenant 1] said that in June there was another incidence of the pump running the tank dry after a leak. The previous time that this happened, the landlord made a one-off payment of $40.00. I noted in the previous order that is a substantial over-assessment of the actual power used, but the landlord made the payment willingly. Ms Milner indicated that the landlord would be willing to make the same contribution for this recent incident. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings. I will award the tenants the filing fee 7 . Name suppression is granted to the tenants 8 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900833 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900833 — Tenancy dispute

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