What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4908045 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4908045?

Compensation: 2 Seater Sofa: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Coffee Table: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Desk And Chair: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: double bed and mattres…: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Fridge: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Locker: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Microwave: $80.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Television: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908045?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908045?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424223-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4908045 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4908045?

Compensation: 2 Seater Sofa: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Coffee Table: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Desk And Chair: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: double bed and mattres…: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Fridge: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Locker: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Microwave: $80.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Television: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908045?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908045?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424223-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

100 Te Tihi Street, Wiri, Auckland 2104 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4908045 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908045 — net $2,650.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: double bed and mattress	$800.00	double bed and mattress
Compensation: coffee table	$150.00	coffee table
Compensation: desk and chair	$200.00	desk and chair
Compensation: 2 seater sofa	$450.00	2 seater sofa
Compensation: television	$350.00	television
Compensation: microwave	$80.00	microwave
Compensation: fridge	$500.00	fridge
Compensation: locker	$100.00	locker
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,650.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,650.44

Both parties attended the hearings on 14 October 2024, 13 November 2024 and today.

The tenant claims: a. Compensation for failure to provide a physical key to the main door to him at the start of the tenancy, b. An order that the landlord installs a deadbolt to the main door which will not allow anyone outside to enter the premises once the tenant has engaged the deadbolt. c. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment, and d. Compensation for failure by the landlord to provide chattels to the premises.

The issue to do with the landlord waiving all current water charges until the landlord is able to send current water rates invoices and calculations of actual payments required to be paid by the tenant has been resolved. The tenant confirmed having received his water credits from the landlord accordingly.

I address each of the tenant’s unresolved claims as follows. Physical key to main door and deadbolt request

While the landlord failed to provide a physical key to the main door to the tenant at the start of the tenancy, I do not consider that the landlord is obliged to do so.

The main door was controlled by a digital key code and securely locked digitally. The tenant was provided with the key code and was able to access the premises using the key code provided.

I consider that the landlord has complied with their obligations under section 46 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) in that the landlord has provided and maintained such locks and other similar devices (such as a digital key code system) as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.

The fact that the landlord subsequently acceded to the tenant on providing a physical key to the main door does not alter my finding that the initial provision of a digital key code system was adequate in the first place.

The same applies to the refusal by the landlord to accede to the tenant’s request for installation of a deadbolt to the main door which will not allow anyone outside to enter the premises once the tenant has engaged the deadbolt.

I accept the landlord’s rationale for not installing deadbolts in the premises. There are health and safety concerns at stake. I consider the premises as it is to be reasonably secure even without the deadbolt lock in place.

I therefore dismiss the tenant’s 2 claims in respect of the deadlock and provision of physical key at the start of the tenancy. Alleged harassment by the landlord

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord and/or their agents have harassed them.

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.

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 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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.

There was no objective evidence before the Tribunal that the landlord or their agents have ever been at the premises without the tenant’s permission or without prior notification.

The onus of proving that the landlord has committed the unlawful act lies with the tenant in the first instance. The tenant failed to discharge this onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

The landlord is a social housing provider. I do not accept that the landlord or their agents have interfered with the peace, comfort or quiet enjoyment of tenant at all.

Accordingly, the tenant’s claim fails. Missing chattels

The tenant’s claim to do with non-provision of chattels at the start of the tenancy is successful.

The tenant has adduced an email from P Raj (the landlord’s tenancy relations officer) on 4 April 2024 which attaches a list of Landlord’s Chattels (schedule 1, which list has not been subsequently crossed out) along with the tenancy agreement.

This email shows that chattels were meant to be provided to the tenancy and the tenant signed the tenancy agreement relying on the list accordingly. It was not in order for the landlord to subsequently cross out the chattels unilaterally without the tenant’s consent.

Consequently, I find that the binding terms of the tenancy at the start of the tenancy includes the provision of chattels as stated on schedule 1 on the tenancy agreement and the landlord has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement by failing to provide the stated chattels. Only curtains had been provided to the premises at the start of the tenancy.

The tenant has since purchased the missing chattels and items of furniture himself. I consider that the tenant is entitled to be reimbursed reasonable costs for the purchase of chattels and furniture concerned.

The landlord provided an itemised estimation of the costs, quoting that they can easily purchase them at the stated amounts. The tenant has not provided any invoice or receipts of purchase at the hearing.

Having regard to the above evidence and submission before me, I order the landlord to pay $2,650.44 to the tenant as set out in the above table. The amounts ordered includes reimbursement of the tenant’s Tribunal filing fee.

I also order suppression of the tenant’s name given that the tenant has been partially successful in this claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908045 — net $2,650.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: double bed and mattress	$800.00	double bed and mattress
Compensation: coffee table	$150.00	coffee table
Compensation: desk and chair	$200.00	desk and chair
Compensation: 2 seater sofa	$450.00	2 seater sofa
Compensation: television	$350.00	television
Compensation: microwave	$80.00	microwave
Compensation: fridge	$500.00	fridge
Compensation: locker	$100.00	locker
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,650.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,650.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,650.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The remaining claims by the tenant are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 14 October 2024, 13 November 2024 and today.
The tenant claims: a. Compensation for failure to provide a physical key to the main door to him at the start of the tenancy, b. An order that the landlord installs a deadbolt to the main door which will not allow anyone outside to enter the premises once the tenant has engaged the deadbolt. c. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment, and d. Compensation for failure by the landlord to provide chattels to the premises.
The issue to do with the landlord waiving all current water charges until the landlord is able to send current water rates invoices and calculations of actual payments required to be paid by the tenant has been resolved. The tenant confirmed having received his water credits from the landlord accordingly.
I address each of the tenant’s unresolved claims as follows. Physical key to main door and deadbolt request
While the landlord failed to provide a physical key to the main door to the tenant at the start of the tenancy, I do not consider that the landlord is obliged to do so.
The main door was controlled by a digital key code and securely locked digitally. The tenant was provided with the key code and was able to access the premises using the key code provided.
I consider that the landlord has complied with their obligations under section 46 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) in that the landlord has provided and maintained such locks and other similar devices (such as a digital key code system) as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
The fact that the landlord subsequently acceded to the tenant on providing a physical key to the main door does not alter my finding that the initial provision of a digital key code system was adequate in the first place.
The same applies to the refusal by the landlord to accede to the tenant’s request for installation of a deadbolt to the main door which will not allow anyone outside to enter the premises once the tenant has engaged the deadbolt.
I accept the landlord’s rationale for not installing deadbolts in the premises. There are health and safety concerns at stake. I consider the premises as it is to be reasonably secure even without the deadbolt lock in place.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s 2 claims in respect of the deadlock and provision of physical key at the start of the tenancy. Alleged harassment by the landlord
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord and/or their agents have harassed them.
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.
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 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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.
There was no objective evidence before the Tribunal that the landlord or their agents have ever been at the premises without the tenant’s permission or without prior notification.
The onus of proving that the landlord has committed the unlawful act lies with the tenant in the first instance. The tenant failed to discharge this onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord is a social housing provider. I do not accept that the landlord or their agents have interfered with the peace, comfort or quiet enjoyment of tenant at all.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim fails. Missing chattels
The tenant’s claim to do with non-provision of chattels at the start of the tenancy is successful.
The tenant has adduced an email from P Raj (the landlord’s tenancy relations officer) on 4 April 2024 which attaches a list of Landlord’s Chattels (schedule 1, which list has not been subsequently crossed out) along with the tenancy agreement.
This email shows that chattels were meant to be provided to the tenancy and the tenant signed the tenancy agreement relying on the list accordingly. It was not in order for the landlord to subsequently cross out the chattels unilaterally without the tenant’s consent.
Consequently, I find that the binding terms of the tenancy at the start of the tenancy includes the provision of chattels as stated on schedule 1 on the tenancy agreement and the landlord has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement by failing to provide the stated chattels. Only curtains had been provided to the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant has since purchased the missing chattels and items of furniture himself. I consider that the tenant is entitled to be reimbursed reasonable costs for the purchase of chattels and furniture concerned.
The landlord provided an itemised estimation of the costs, quoting that they can easily purchase them at the stated amounts. The tenant has not provided any invoice or receipts of purchase at the hearing.
Having regard to the above evidence and submission before me, I order the landlord to pay $2,650.44 to the tenant as set out in the above table. The amounts ordered includes reimbursement of the tenant’s Tribunal filing fee.
I also order suppression of the tenant’s name given that the tenant has been partially successful in this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908045 — Tenancy dispute at 100 Te Tihi Street, Wiri, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908045 — Tenancy dispute at 100 Te Tihi Street, Wiri, Auckland 2104

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