What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4951893 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4951893?

Break Lease Fee: $1,092.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,071.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4951893?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4951893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10971354-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4951893 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4951893?

Break Lease Fee: $1,092.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,071.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4951893?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4951893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10971354-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4951893 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4951893 — net $1,390.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25/06/2024	$4,071.43	Rent arrears to 25/06/2024
Break lease fee	$1,092.50	Break lease fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,390.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,390.93

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,390.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 th October 2024. The tenants attended in person and the landlord attended via teleconference.
The tenants applied for compensation for the landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). The tenant sought compensation for having paid for the re-listing fee, parking permit, storage, moving costs and refund of the bond. 4951893, 49694452
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears and the break lease fee. Background
The premises is a two-storey villa. The landlord and her family lived downstairs and they rented out the upstairs area.
When the tenants viewed the upstairs area, the tenants were told about the landlord’s family living downstairs.
The tenants assumed that there would be enough sound insulation between the two floors based on their past experiences with similar houses and also the fact that the upstairs had been renovated.
The tenants asked the letting agent whether the premises had any noise issues. The letting agent told the tenant that there would not be any noise issues as the landlord was a quiet family.
The tenants did not notice any noise issues at the time and signed up to a fixed- term tenancy of one year starting from 14 th April 2024.
After the tenancy began, the tenants found that the sound insulation between the floors was little to none and that the tenants could hear the landlord’s family downstairs too well. The tenants said that they could hear doors closing, people talking and the water flowing down the pipes. They could hear what was going on downstairs at all hours of the day and night.
The tenants had put a rug to dampen the sound but said that it was ineffective.
On 22 nd April 2024, approximately a week after the tenancy began, the tenants texted the landlord’s husband regarding the landlord breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenants were of the view that they could no longer stay at the property due to the severe breach of their rights and requested for the landlord to schedule viewings to find new tenants to take over the property.
On 23 rd April 2024, the letting agent contacted the tenants and suggested a viewing for 24 th April 2024. However, the tenants declined as they were given less than 24 hours’ notice. The letting agent suggested 27 th April 2024 for a viewing. The tenants agreed.
On 26 th April 2024, the owner emailed the tenants agreeing to release to the tenants earlier if and when a suitable replacement tenant was found. It is unclear why but the viewing suggested on 27 th April 2024 did not take place.
Between 16 th and 18 th May 2024, a different agent from the same property management company contacted the tenants regarding the re-listing process.
On 21 st May 2024, the premises was relisted by the second agent.
On 26 th May 2024, the tenants vacate the premises. 4951893, 49694453
On 25 th June 2024, the landlord signs a new tenancy agreement with new tenants starting on the following day. Tenant’s claims
The tenants claim that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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.
The tenant did not allege that the landlord was doing anything other than ordinary everyday living. The issue was more with the lack of soundproofing or insulation between the floors. The tenant says that the possible sound travel issue should have been highlighted before the tenancy started.
The tenants produced videos taken during the tenancy to support the breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment claim. I find that it was no more than ordinary noise that can reasonably be at an old villa.
The tenants had the opportunity to view the premises before signing the fixed- term tenancy. I do not find that the tenant had been misled into signing the tenancy agreement. The tenants had assumed on their own that there would be less sound travel than what transpired.
I do not find that the noise was such that the tenant should have been warned beforehand by the landlord.
I do not find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
In relation to the HHS issue, there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the fireplace could be used straight away or required cleaning before it could be used. There was no evidence to prove either way.
The landlord had told the tenant that a heat pump would be installed and there was evidence of the said heat pump having been installed in July 2024. The landlord said that the heat pump was not installed before the tenants vacated the premises to not further disturb the tenants. 4951893, 49694454
The HHS statement and the reports were provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The HHS report dated 23 rd January 2024 noted that the premises was HHS compliant.
I find that the tenant’s claims regarding HHS non-compliance is not proven.
Tenant’s other claims were based on the claim that the tenancy could not be sustained due to undue interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. As I have found that there was no breach by the landlord, the tenant’s all other claims are dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application
The landlord applied for rent arrears and the break-lease fee.
The landlord is entitled to receive rent until the end of the fixed-term tenancy or when a new tenancy begins at the premises, whichever is earlier.
The landlord confirmed that a new tenancy began on 26 th June 2024.
The rent owing to 25 th June 2024 is $4,071.43.
The landlord was also charged $1,092.50 for the reletting fee. This was in addition to the re-listing fee paid by the tenants already.
I order the tenants to pay the amounts to the landlord as per the above order.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4951893 — net $1,390.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25/06/2024	$4,071.43	Rent arrears to 25/06/2024
Break lease fee	$1,092.50	Break lease fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,390.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,390.93

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,390.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 th October 2024. The tenants attended in person and the landlord attended via teleconference.
The tenants applied for compensation for the landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). The tenant sought compensation for having paid for the re-listing fee, parking permit, storage, moving costs and refund of the bond. 4951893, 49694452
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears and the break lease fee. Background
The premises is a two-storey villa. The landlord and her family lived downstairs and they rented out the upstairs area.
When the tenants viewed the upstairs area, the tenants were told about the landlord’s family living downstairs.
The tenants assumed that there would be enough sound insulation between the two floors based on their past experiences with similar houses and also the fact that the upstairs had been renovated.
The tenants asked the letting agent whether the premises had any noise issues. The letting agent told the tenant that there would not be any noise issues as the landlord was a quiet family.
The tenants did not notice any noise issues at the time and signed up to a fixed- term tenancy of one year starting from 14 th April 2024.
After the tenancy began, the tenants found that the sound insulation between the floors was little to none and that the tenants could hear the landlord’s family downstairs too well. The tenants said that they could hear doors closing, people talking and the water flowing down the pipes. They could hear what was going on downstairs at all hours of the day and night.
The tenants had put a rug to dampen the sound but said that it was ineffective.
On 22 nd April 2024, approximately a week after the tenancy began, the tenants texted the landlord’s husband regarding the landlord breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenants were of the view that they could no longer stay at the property due to the severe breach of their rights and requested for the landlord to schedule viewings to find new tenants to take over the property.
On 23 rd April 2024, the letting agent contacted the tenants and suggested a viewing for 24 th April 2024. However, the tenants declined as they were given less than 24 hours’ notice. The letting agent suggested 27 th April 2024 for a viewing. The tenants agreed.
On 26 th April 2024, the owner emailed the tenants agreeing to release to the tenants earlier if and when a suitable replacement tenant was found. It is unclear why but the viewing suggested on 27 th April 2024 did not take place.
Between 16 th and 18 th May 2024, a different agent from the same property management company contacted the tenants regarding the re-listing process.
On 21 st May 2024, the premises was relisted by the second agent.
On 26 th May 2024, the tenants vacate the premises. 4951893, 49694453
On 25 th June 2024, the landlord signs a new tenancy agreement with new tenants starting on the following day. Tenant’s claims
The tenants claim that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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.
The tenant did not allege that the landlord was doing anything other than ordinary everyday living. The issue was more with the lack of soundproofing or insulation between the floors. The tenant says that the possible sound travel issue should have been highlighted before the tenancy started.
The tenants produced videos taken during the tenancy to support the breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment claim. I find that it was no more than ordinary noise that can reasonably be at an old villa.
The tenants had the opportunity to view the premises before signing the fixed- term tenancy. I do not find that the tenant had been misled into signing the tenancy agreement. The tenants had assumed on their own that there would be less sound travel than what transpired.
I do not find that the noise was such that the tenant should have been warned beforehand by the landlord.
I do not find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
In relation to the HHS issue, there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the fireplace could be used straight away or required cleaning before it could be used. There was no evidence to prove either way.
The landlord had told the tenant that a heat pump would be installed and there was evidence of the said heat pump having been installed in July 2024. The landlord said that the heat pump was not installed before the tenants vacated the premises to not further disturb the tenants. 4951893, 49694454
The HHS statement and the reports were provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The HHS report dated 23 rd January 2024 noted that the premises was HHS compliant.
I find that the tenant’s claims regarding HHS non-compliance is not proven.
Tenant’s other claims were based on the claim that the tenancy could not be sustained due to undue interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. As I have found that there was no breach by the landlord, the tenant’s all other claims are dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application
The landlord applied for rent arrears and the break-lease fee.
The landlord is entitled to receive rent until the end of the fixed-term tenancy or when a new tenancy begins at the premises, whichever is earlier.
The landlord confirmed that a new tenancy began on 26 th June 2024.
The rent owing to 25 th June 2024 is $4,071.43.
The landlord was also charged $1,092.50 for the reletting fee. This was in addition to the re-listing fee paid by the tenants already.
I order the tenants to pay the amounts to the landlord as per the above order.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4951893 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4951893 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions