What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940804 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 4940804?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Quiet Enjoyment: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $103.52 awarded to landlord; Vanity Top: $1,135.38 awarded to landlord; Walls/Painting: $756.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940804?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11610529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940804 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 4940804?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Quiet Enjoyment: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $103.52 awarded to landlord; Vanity Top: $1,135.38 awarded to landlord; Walls/Painting: $756.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940804?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11610529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940804 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940804 — net $2,012.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$103.52	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Walls/Painting	$756.13	Repairs: Walls/Painting
Repairs: Vanity Top	$1,135.38	Repairs: Vanity Top
Lock/key replacement	$130.00	Lock/key replacement
Quiet Enjoyment	$1,000.00	Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,012.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,012.03

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Christopher Michael Conaghan and Yumi Conaghan must pay [the landlord/s] $2,012.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$103.52 Carpet Cleaning$300.00 Repairs: Walls/Painting$756.13 Repairs: Vanity Top$1,135.38 Lock/key replacement$130.00 Quiet Enjoyment$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$3,452.03 Bond$1,440.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,012.03
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 to [the landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held over three days in late 2024. The last hearing was held by video.
Because of the disjointed nature of the hearing, it has taken some time to thoroughly review all of the documents and evidence which the parties referred to.
The tenants claimed refund of the bond and exemplary following the end of the tenancy. They say that the landlord failed to pay the bond within the prescribed timeframe and gave an inappropriate notice to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)
In the decision that follows I have not referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Tenant Claims
The tenant’s application came before the tribunal in August 2024 for determination of a preliminary issue in relation to jurisdiction. The tenants rented a self-contained area within the landlord’s home.
Before the Tribunal made a decision on the nature of the relationship, [the landlord/s] had understood that the Conaghans were boarders. Failure to Lodge the Bond
Christopher Michael Conaghan claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond within 23 working days, because she understood that she and the Conaghans had entered into a “Boarder Agreement”. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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.
[The landlord/s] failure to lodge the bond was not intentional. It arose from a genuine misunderstanding as to the nature of the relationship. Once the Tribunal had determined that this was a tenancy, [the landlord/s] lodged the bond (even though the tenancy had already ended).
I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this situation. The application is dismissed. Termination of the Tenancy
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties entered into a written boarder agreement, recording that each could give the other four weeks’ notice to terminate their living arrangements. That provision is contrary to the notice requirements of s51 RTA and is unenforceable.
In July 2024, issues arose between the parties. The landlord attempted to discuss concerns with the tenants but came to the view that the situation could not be salvaged. Following a discussion, [the landlord/s] sent the tenants an email recording that the agreement was being terminated on 4 weeks notice.
Mr Conaghan replied on 17 July, stating that he had contacted Tenancy Services and, on their advice, had made an application to the Tribunal and lodged a complaint with the compliance team.
From there, the situation deteriorated quickly. The landlord claims that Mr Conaghan’s behaviour became aggressive. [The landlord/s] still understood that the arrangement was a boarder situation within her own home and took advice from the Police as to the best way to resolve the dispute. The tenants left the premises with the involvement of Police and Mr Conaghan’s father, after the 4 week notice period. After the tenant’s had left, the landlord’s security camera has recorded Mr Conaghan’s father attempting to return to the premises.
While the 4 week notice period was contrary to the RTA, [the landlord/s] did not know that she was not entitled to end the living arrangements in the way she did. I find that at all times, she was acting in good faith and on advice from Police.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Landlord Claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy. At the hearing, the tenant’s accepted the claim of $103.52. I have made an order accordingly.
The landlord also claimed for electricity on the basis that the tenants were home more than she had expected and therefore used more power.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
Where utilities are shared between more than one dwelling or building, the landlord will not be able calculate a tenant’s share of outgoings without a separate water meter or check meter. A tenant is therefore not liable to pay for electricity charges on a meter shared with other premises (Green v McGregor [2015] NZTT Waitakere 1292).
The landlord’s claim for electricity charges is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, in particular the carpet was stained. The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices/receipts to prove its claims. The amounts awarded are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
There was staining damage to a vanity top and wall & paint damage during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenants argued the extent of the damage was fair wear and tear; it was not. The damage was more extensive than would usually occur within 6 months of someone living in the premises.
The landlord provided evidence by way of photographs and repair costs. These claims are proved.
The landlord also claimed other repairs costs in relation to a gate and replacement fridge, but did not prove these claims to the required standard. They are dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours, being her and her daughter.
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.
[The landlord/s] provided evidence by way of recordings from her phone of Mr Conaghan speaking about her after she purported to end the tenancy. Mr Conaghan objected to the recording being played and referred to them as covert and illegal.
The Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law (see s 97(4) RTA).
In He v Bai (DC Waitakere, CIV-2013-090-455, 23 October 2013) the District Court held that a covert recording was relevant and admissible. The Court said: [20] The right of silence preserved by s 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies to protect a person accused of criminal conduct from self incriminating [sic]. Even in criminal cases Courts have been willing to admit covertly recorded statements if voluntarily given. Accordingly there is no blanket ban even in that jurisdiction especially in those cases where the statements are not made to a person in authority such as a police officer ... [21] Accordingly the evidence of the recording itself was in my view directly relevant for a point in issue in the case and did not require the consent or even the knowledge of Ms Bai as a pre-condition to its admissibility. ...
The overriding principle is one of fairness to both parties. Where a recording of a conversation is made without the knowledge of the other party, this is a factor which can be considered in determining the weight given to the evidence.
In this instance, the recordings made by [the landlord/s], in her home (not in the Conaghan’s tenancy premises) and are evidence of what [the landlord/s] and her daughter could hear. [The landlord/s] also claims that she made the recordings on advice from the Police. I find that it appropriate to take the recordings into evidence.
The evidence is troubling, and I have not set it out in full. The recordings confirm that Mr Conaghan was using threatening and derogatory language against the landlord. This included comments to the effect of her being a psychopath and to him hating her. He also made comments that her stupidity would pay for his trip overseas. I find that the language and volume used was directed at [the landlord/s] and was intended to, and did, cause distress. The landlord also provided medical evidence to support her claim.
The tenant has disturbed its neighbour, [the landlord/s], in circumstances that amount to harassment. Having regard to the evidence, I award compensation of $1,000.
As [the landlord/s] was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of her filing fee and granted suppression of her name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940804 — net $2,012.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$103.52	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Walls/Painting	$756.13	Repairs: Walls/Painting
Repairs: Vanity Top	$1,135.38	Repairs: Vanity Top
Lock/key replacement	$130.00	Lock/key replacement
Quiet Enjoyment	$1,000.00	Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,012.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,012.03

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Christopher Michael Conaghan and Yumi Conaghan must pay [the landlord/s] $2,012.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$103.52 Carpet Cleaning$300.00 Repairs: Walls/Painting$756.13 Repairs: Vanity Top$1,135.38 Lock/key replacement$130.00 Quiet Enjoyment$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$3,452.03 Bond$1,440.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,012.03
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 to [the landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held over three days in late 2024. The last hearing was held by video.
Because of the disjointed nature of the hearing, it has taken some time to thoroughly review all of the documents and evidence which the parties referred to.
The tenants claimed refund of the bond and exemplary following the end of the tenancy. They say that the landlord failed to pay the bond within the prescribed timeframe and gave an inappropriate notice to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)
In the decision that follows I have not referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Tenant Claims
The tenant’s application came before the tribunal in August 2024 for determination of a preliminary issue in relation to jurisdiction. The tenants rented a self-contained area within the landlord’s home.
Before the Tribunal made a decision on the nature of the relationship, [the landlord/s] had understood that the Conaghans were boarders. Failure to Lodge the Bond
Christopher Michael Conaghan claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond within 23 working days, because she understood that she and the Conaghans had entered into a “Boarder Agreement”. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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.
[The landlord/s] failure to lodge the bond was not intentional. It arose from a genuine misunderstanding as to the nature of the relationship. Once the Tribunal had determined that this was a tenancy, [the landlord/s] lodged the bond (even though the tenancy had already ended).
I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this situation. The application is dismissed. Termination of the Tenancy
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties entered into a written boarder agreement, recording that each could give the other four weeks’ notice to terminate their living arrangements. That provision is contrary to the notice requirements of s51 RTA and is unenforceable.
In July 2024, issues arose between the parties. The landlord attempted to discuss concerns with the tenants but came to the view that the situation could not be salvaged. Following a discussion, [the landlord/s] sent the tenants an email recording that the agreement was being terminated on 4 weeks notice.
Mr Conaghan replied on 17 July, stating that he had contacted Tenancy Services and, on their advice, had made an application to the Tribunal and lodged a complaint with the compliance team.
From there, the situation deteriorated quickly. The landlord claims that Mr Conaghan’s behaviour became aggressive. [The landlord/s] still understood that the arrangement was a boarder situation within her own home and took advice from the Police as to the best way to resolve the dispute. The tenants left the premises with the involvement of Police and Mr Conaghan’s father, after the 4 week notice period. After the tenant’s had left, the landlord’s security camera has recorded Mr Conaghan’s father attempting to return to the premises.
While the 4 week notice period was contrary to the RTA, [the landlord/s] did not know that she was not entitled to end the living arrangements in the way she did. I find that at all times, she was acting in good faith and on advice from Police.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Landlord Claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy. At the hearing, the tenant’s accepted the claim of $103.52. I have made an order accordingly.
The landlord also claimed for electricity on the basis that the tenants were home more than she had expected and therefore used more power.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
Where utilities are shared between more than one dwelling or building, the landlord will not be able calculate a tenant’s share of outgoings without a separate water meter or check meter. A tenant is therefore not liable to pay for electricity charges on a meter shared with other premises (Green v McGregor [2015] NZTT Waitakere 1292).
The landlord’s claim for electricity charges is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, in particular the carpet was stained. The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices/receipts to prove its claims. The amounts awarded are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
There was staining damage to a vanity top and wall & paint damage during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenants argued the extent of the damage was fair wear and tear; it was not. The damage was more extensive than would usually occur within 6 months of someone living in the premises.
The landlord provided evidence by way of photographs and repair costs. These claims are proved.
The landlord also claimed other repairs costs in relation to a gate and replacement fridge, but did not prove these claims to the required standard. They are dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours, being her and her daughter.
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.
[The landlord/s] provided evidence by way of recordings from her phone of Mr Conaghan speaking about her after she purported to end the tenancy. Mr Conaghan objected to the recording being played and referred to them as covert and illegal.
The Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law (see s 97(4) RTA).
In He v Bai (DC Waitakere, CIV-2013-090-455, 23 October 2013) the District Court held that a covert recording was relevant and admissible. The Court said: [20] The right of silence preserved by s 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies to protect a person accused of criminal conduct from self incriminating [sic]. Even in criminal cases Courts have been willing to admit covertly recorded statements if voluntarily given. Accordingly there is no blanket ban even in that jurisdiction especially in those cases where the statements are not made to a person in authority such as a police officer ... [21] Accordingly the evidence of the recording itself was in my view directly relevant for a point in issue in the case and did not require the consent or even the knowledge of Ms Bai as a pre-condition to its admissibility. ...
The overriding principle is one of fairness to both parties. Where a recording of a conversation is made without the knowledge of the other party, this is a factor which can be considered in determining the weight given to the evidence.
In this instance, the recordings made by [the landlord/s], in her home (not in the Conaghan’s tenancy premises) and are evidence of what [the landlord/s] and her daughter could hear. [The landlord/s] also claims that she made the recordings on advice from the Police. I find that it appropriate to take the recordings into evidence.
The evidence is troubling, and I have not set it out in full. The recordings confirm that Mr Conaghan was using threatening and derogatory language against the landlord. This included comments to the effect of her being a psychopath and to him hating her. He also made comments that her stupidity would pay for his trip overseas. I find that the language and volume used was directed at [the landlord/s] and was intended to, and did, cause distress. The landlord also provided medical evidence to support her claim.
The tenant has disturbed its neighbour, [the landlord/s], in circumstances that amount to harassment. Having regard to the evidence, I award compensation of $1,000.
As [the landlord/s] was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of her filing fee and granted suppression of her name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940804 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940804 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions