What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941915 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 4941915?

Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoym…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,348.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $260.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941915?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11119085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941915 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 4941915?

Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoym…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,348.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $260.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941915?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11119085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Corsair Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4941915 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941915 — net $58.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 June 2024	$2,348.57		Rent arrears to 28 June 2024
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$190.00		Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: Mattress	$100.00		Rubbish removal: Mattress
Water rates	$260.38		Water rates
Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$700.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Total award	$2,998.95	$700.00
Net award	$58.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$58.95

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941915 — net $58.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 June 2024	$2,348.57		Rent arrears to 28 June 2024
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$190.00		Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: Mattress	$100.00		Rubbish removal: Mattress
Water rates	$260.38		Water rates
Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$700.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Total award	$2,998.95	$700.00
Net award	$58.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$58.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $58.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 25 October 2024. The claims
The tenant filed his application first, he claimed: a. That the landlord had not complied with Healthy Homes Standards. b. That the landlord failed to maintain the property. c. That the landlord breached his quiet enjoyment by the number and extent of open homes that the landlord had for the sale of the property.
The landlord counterclaimed claiming: a. Rent arrears to 28 June - $2348.57 b. Water rates owed- $260.31 c. Rubbish removal and lawns $793.50 d. Cleaning and smoke alarms $586.50 Background.
The tenant lived at the property with his two dogs from June 2022 to 28 June 2024. The property is an older (circa 1940-50’s) brick home on a large section.
In January this year the house was put on the market by the owner. [The property agents] were the property agents. The tenant was co-operative with the agent and allowed multiple viewings and open homes. This was at some inconvenience to the tenant as he had to take his dogs off the property and ensure that the house was presentable. Unfortunately, the house did not sell for a number of months, so the number of open homes and viewings was considerable.
On the 2 May 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice as below: We regret to inform you that we have been instructed by the owner of the premises to give you notice to end your tenancy. As we are acting as agent, we therefore provide you a minimum of 90 days' notice to end your tenancy. This is pursuant to section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act. Your tenancy at 5 Corsair Crescent Mangere, will end on 02/08/2024. The landlord has to provide you a reason for the ending of the tenancy. The reason the landlord is providing is outlined under section 51(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession. Please understand that we are here to help. We can provide a range of services to help you with your move, whether it be through searching for a new property for you to assisting you with ancillary services to help you with your move. As this is a periodic tenancy, you are free to give a minimum of 28 days ‘notice if you wish to vacate. Please be aware that if you do give us notice, the notice period commences the day after the notice was served. This is outlined in section 136A of the Residential Tenancies Act.
At the hearing the sales agent confirmed that it had not actually settled the sale of the property. The house has been extensively renovated in the meantime and was now due to settle some time in November.
The tenant was extremely concerned about finding another rental which he thought would be very difficult because of his two dogs. Therefore, he felt compelled to take the first tenancy offered to him. The tenant asked the landlord to release him earlier than the 28 days, but the landlord refused.
The tenant felt aggrieved that he had been very accommodating to the landlord’s open homes and sale of the property but had not been given any leeway in leaving the property earlier. The tenant was required to pay two sets of rent one for the new property and the other for this tenancy, this put him in further financial hardship at a time that he was already in hardship due to a health condition that had forced him to take leave from his job.

Is the tenant liable for rent to the 28 June 2024?

Although the landlord gave notice saying that the landlord needed vacant possession for an unconditional sale, the landlord’s sales agent confirmed at the hearing on the 25 October, that the house had not yet been settled. The house has in fact been extensively renovated. The sales agent could not tell me when the renovations began.
The tenant gave notice on the 31 May meaning that he was liable for rent until the 28 June 2024. The tenant had possession of the house until the end of the 28-day period, whilst he moved over this time and used the remainder of the time to clean the property, he did not hand back the keys until the end of the 28-day period. Rent is consideration for possession of a property and therefore the tenant is liable for the rent until the 28 June 2024.
As an aside, it is a requirement that when a landlord gives notice to the tenant under s51, and the reason for the termination ceases to exist, for instance in this case the owner did not need to give vacant possession, then the notice for termination should have been retracted. This is even if another reason (such as conducting extensive renovations) exists. The requirement is that tenants are informed of the genuine intention of the landlord when being told that their tenancies are ending, and they can plan accordingly. If a landlord fails to give the required notice, or gives the wrong notice, then it may be an invalid termination under s60AA RTA. Water rates
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the water rates until the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided water invoices which support their claims. The amount of $260.31 is awarded. Is the tenant liable for cleaning, rubbish removal, lawns and reinstatement of the fire alarm.
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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant left the interior property in a reasonable condition. The inspection photographs show a property that is reasonably clean. (especially when compared with the ingoing inspection photographs). The tenant gave evidence that he cleaned the property before he left.
I am also puzzled as to why the landlord had the property professionally cleaned, when it was being renovated. The property manager told me that he was unaware that the property was being renovated after the tenant left.
The landlord has sought $140 plus GST for lawnmowing. I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the lawns mown , there were some areas that were largely overgrown. However, I only award $100 for this breach as the landlord did not mow the lawns for nearly 3 weeks after the tenant left which would have added to the cost.
There was a waste bin/ bag left at the property. The tenant had brought the bag and was waiting for his next pay to have the bag uplifted. He told the property manager that he would have the bag uplifted at his cost at that time. The landlord had the bag removed by another company before that date. Whilst it was the tenant’s responsibility to have the bag uplifted on or before the tenancy ended, I do not consider that the landlord mitigated its loss. The tenant’s waste bag is a generic type, all the landlord had to do was ring the company and have it uplifted. It could have passed those costs onto the tenant who was liable for those costs. I am not satisfied that it was necessary for the landlord to incur this large cost, and therefore I only award the landlord the usual cost of having the bag removed. Of $190.00
There was in addition a large mattress on the waste bag which would not have been taken by the rubbish collectors. Mattresses are difficult to dispose of. I award the landlord a further $100.00 for the disposal of the mattress.
The tenant says that he left the smoke alarm in the drawer. Whilst he should not have removed the smoke alarm. I do not award the cost of the new smoke alarm as the photographs posted online show an extensive renovation of the property after the tenant left and therefore, I question why the tenant should pay for the installation that was unnecessary. Was the home compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards.
On the 21 October only 4 days before the hearing the tenant added additional claims to his application. These included a failure to maintain the property and a failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The claims were discussed at hearing, and therefore I consider that I am able to determine the claims.
The landlord had the property assessed for Healthy Homes compliance before the tenancy. The Healthy Homes Assessment stated compliance with all of the Standards except the ground moisture barrier, the guttering standard (there was broken guttering) and the draught standard because there were window latches that had come off.
The landlord provided invoices form tradespeople showing that the ground moisture barrier was installed on the 2 June 2022 and the window latches and guttering fixed on the 11 May 2022.
The tenant also stated that there was additional broken guttering. This was denied by the landlord. The landlord said that the tenant never raised this issue with them. The landlord also had the gutters cleaned on an annual basis (and provided evidence of this) and no defects were noticed or recorded at that time. In the absence of any photographs of the exact damage or complaints by the tenant, I am not satisfied that there was a defect in the guttering.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the house was compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards within 90 days of the date of commencement of the tenancy 1 and therefore the tenant’s claim that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards is not proven.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the hot water cylinder and the window latches at the property.
There was a problem with a leak in the hot water cylinder during the tenancy which was fixed. After the fix the tenant noticed that there was often a continuous sound of water from the overflow. The tenant complained of this on the 24 April and the landlord requested repair on the same day and was invoiced for the repair on the 26 April. I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to repair the hot water cylinder.
The tenant says that window latches came off and were not replaced. However, there was insufficient evidence provided at the hearing to satisfy me that the landlord failed to maintain the window latches. The landlord’s exit inspection notes that the windows have latches and are secure. There is no correspondence between the parties where the tenant complains about the window latches.
The tenants claim for failure to maintain is not proven. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property? 1 The required timeframe for this tenancy.
The tenant claims that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property by the number and frequency of open homes. He said in his application. I rented a property at 5 Corsair Crescent in Mangere, which went on the market last November. [The landlord/s] informed me that [The property agent] would arrange open homes. This was highly inconvenient as I lived alone with my dogs. The agent required 2 to 3 weekly viewings, which restricted my activities and impacted my mental health recovery until April. [The property agent] later informed me of another round of open homes, at least three per week, after the first auction was unsuccessful. This constant intrusion and the need to keep the place clean out of normal routine was challenging. I supported the agencies, and the property was eventually sold.
The tenant says that there were 27 open homes or viewings that he accommodated within the 4-month period. This was disputed by the landlord who said there were about 19 viewings. This was at considerable disruption to the tenant because he would need to clean the house and ensure that his dogs were taken out. The tenant was also unwell during this time. I have been provided with the transcript of text messages between the sales agent and the sales agent and it is clear that very early on in the marketing the tenant was advising the sales agent that the number and extent of viewings was difficult and having an effect on his life. An example of this was in February the tenant asked for a weekend off, because he wanted to catch up with friends having not been able to the weekends before because of the open homes. Whilst the response was sympathetic from the sales agent, there was considerable pressure put on the tenant with the agent asking him to go ahead because it might mean that the house got sold quicker and it appears from those text messages that the open homes went ahead regardless of the tenant’s concerns.
The landlord recognised the intrusion in April and offered the tenant a $50 per open home rebate. The landlord did apply $50 reduction for 6 weeks.
Section 38 RTA says: The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
The Tribunal has previously observed that when a landlord gives notice that the property is to be sold that this can be very stressful and difficult on a tenant. There is an intrusion into the tenant’s life and time that is not off their own making and offers no benefit to them. The tenant is asked to allow regular open homes or viewings, which means that they lose control over who comes into their home and looks at their belongings, they may feel obligated to keep the property to a higher standard of cleanliness or tidiness that they would usually have in living their day to day lives. They may be asked to leave the property for open homes or viewings. Landlords should be aware of these pressures and not have the expectation that tenants will willing comply with all of the sales agents expectations in order to get a quick sale or a higher price. Many landlord’s offer tenants a reduction in rent over the period of the open homes to compensate for this intrusion, some also or instead of a rent reduction offer cleaners over this period. The Tribunal has previously held when there are a large number of open homes that a tenant’s quiet enjoyment has been breached.
I am satisfied that the number and frequency of the open homes was excessive and breached the tenant’s right of quiet enjoyment, because it affected his use and enjoyment of the property. I consider that the remedy for this breach is compensation. The tenant should have their rent abated to reflect the time that the house was on the market and the intrusion into his enjoyment of the property which was ongoing for some time. I have awarded the tenant compensation of $700.00 for this breach, this equates to $50 this equates to 14 weeks – it takes into account the compensation already offered by the landlord.
I do not consider that this type of breach of quiet enjoyment, in these circumstances amounts to harassment and therefore I do not consider an award of exemplary damages. Filing fee and name suppression.
As both parties have been partly successful in their claims, then I do not make any awards that the other pay the filing fee.
I grant each party name suppression. They have both been partly successful in their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941915 — Rent arrears at 5 Corsair Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941915 — Rent arrears at 5 Corsair Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent to the 28 June 2024?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent to the 28 June 2024?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions