What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4995948 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 4995948?

Compensation: Breach Quiet Enjoyment: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $280.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4995948?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4995948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11554602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4995948 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 4995948?

Compensation: Breach Quiet Enjoyment: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $280.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4995948?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4995948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11554602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4995948 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4995948 — net $1,146.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$600.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$280.42		Water rates
Compensation: Breach quiet enjoyment		$2,000.00	Breach quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$880.42	$2,027.00
Net award		$1,146.58
Bond		$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,146.58

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4995948 — net $1,146.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$600.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$280.42		Water rates
Compensation: Breach quiet enjoyment		$2,000.00	Breach quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$880.42	$2,027.00
Net award		$1,146.58
Bond		$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,146.58

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,146.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 15 January 2024 and was a fixed-term tenancy to 29 January 2025.
By agreement, the tenancy came to an end on 1 September 2024.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking an order for rent arrears and compensation for unpaid water rates. In a cross- application, the tenant sought compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment during the tenancy, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

In his cross-application, and at the hearing, the tenant acknowledged that at the end of the tenancy he owed $600.00 in rent and $280.42 in unpaid water rates.
By consent, rent arrears and water rates are awraded in the amount sought by the landlord.

Is the landlord liable for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment?

[The tenant/s] seeks compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment, caused by construction noise to his unit and the surrounding units. The RTA provides that a landlord must not interfere with, nor cause or permit interference 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.
The tenant did not allege harassment and did not seek exemplary damages. Rather, the tenant’s claim was framed as seeking compensation for the inconvenience caused by having their deck under construction from April/May 2024, being unable to park in front of the premises while construction was underway and being unable to have full use of their garage from 28 July 2024 until the end of the tenancy. The tenant also seeks compensation for the unsafe environment caused by removal of the deck and construction of a temporary handrail and for the noise the construction work caused.
The tenant seeks refund of the bond, and compensation of $3,499.00, being $1,624.00 for estimated cost of renting a carpark at $65 per week, and $1,875.00 for estimated cost of storage on account of not being able to use the full garage. The tenant noted the estimated cost of storage was based on 25 weeks at $75 per week, but conceded the garage was not unusable for the full tenancy.
The landlord acknowledges the work undertaken on the tenant’s unit was more significant than had been anticipated at the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord disputes that they are liable to pay compensation in the amount sought by the tenant.

What occurred during the tenancy?

Before taking on the tenancy, the tenant states he was made aware some work would be done on the premises. He says he understood it to be maintenance work on the neighbouring buildings, including the premises next door, but that it would just involve waterproofing of the deck on his unit. He understood it was likely to take a week or two and was prepared to put up with that inconvenience.
The tenancy commenced on 15 January 2024.
On 27 February 2024, the tenant received an email from the landlord attaching a notice from the body corporate. In the email, the landlord advised the anticipated work, including waterproofing of the deck, would be commencing soon. The attached notice referred to demolition around H Block commencing on 11 March 2024.
The tenant says when that work commenced on the neighbouring properties in March it created some minor inconveniences and noise. He says it began to impact him when they began work on the property directly next door in April 2024. He says at that point, the noise was significant during the day and the builders left tools and things lying around, causing both a safety issue for the tenant’s children, and inconvenience.
The tenant says work began on his deck in April or May 2024 and it soon became apparent it was more significant than just replacing the waterproofing. The builders found the support structure beneath the deck (which formed a garage for another unit) needed replacing also. As a result, the deck which came off the premises’ lounge and was estimated by the tenant to be about 5m square or 6m square, was deconstructed.
The tenant was without the use of the deck for the remainder of the tenancy.
The tenant says while the work was being carried out, he was unable to park his car directly outside his unit during the day. He says this was because the builders placed a large skip in the neighbour’s driveway and threw materials into it. He said items loose struck his car on occasion, so he was forced to move his car to park on the street during the day, and move it back to his unit in the evenings only.
On 23 July 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant to advise him the work would be extending to include his garage. The premises’ garage had previously not expected to be included in the work being carried out. The letter advised the tenant that he would need to remove items stored in the garage by 28 July 2024 as work would commence on 29 July 2024.
The tenant says he moved large items out of the garage by that date, but that the parties came to a work around where some of his belongings could remain in the back of the garage, however the tenant was unable to access those items as the garage door was disabled and then replaced with a temporary plywood door.
The tenant produced evidence in the form of a decibel-reading application used on his device which he says demonstrates that on 31 July 2024 the construction noise reached 77.8dB at 10:33am.
The landlord says the tenancy was commenced on the basis that work would need to be carried out in relation to the premises’ deck only, but that it turned out to be more significant than expected. The landlord said the deck was more like 5m by 3m, rather than 5m or 6m squared, and pointed out the property had a courtyard on the other side of the premises which remained usable throughout. The landlord acknowledged however that the tenant was unable to use the deck once work began until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord says they kept the tenant up to date as best they could, and says the tenant did not raise their complaint until after the tenancy was over. The landlord accepts that the work was more extensive than just waterproofing the deck, and that the garage, which the landlord had not expected to be part of the work, could not be fully used by the tenant for the last month of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided copies of email correspondence between the landlord and tenant showing the landlord informed the tenant of the work which would need to be done as and when the landlord became aware of it.
The landlord also provided evidence that neither the contact for the building work, nor the contact for the body corporate received any complaints from the tenant. As stated during the hearing, the tenant’s contractual relationship is with the landlord therefore any evidence in relation to the tenant’s communications (or lack of) with other parties is irrelevant. I therefore put that evidence to one side.
The landlord accepts that the additional work caused some inconvenience to the tenant, but disputes the compensation sought.
In relation to the carparking claim, the landlord says that the tenant was able to park in another area of the complex which was usually reserved for visitors.
In relation to the storage claim, the landlord says a compromise was reached to allow the tenant to still use the back part of the garage for storage. The landlord says that when the garage door had to be removed on 9 August 2024, a plywood door was installed and the tenant was advised the builder would open the plywood door for the tenant when the tenant needed. The landlord acknowledged the tenant required the builder to access the back of the garage, and the builders generally worked Monday to Friday, 8am – 4:30pm. My findings
I find the construction work carried out in relation to the premises did breach the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises. The noise created by the construction on the deck, and surrounding areas, would have impacted the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises. I accept the noise level would have been significant at times, and that the conditions, including the builders’ tools, skip bin and vehicles, would have impacted the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises.
I also find that the tenant was unable to use the deck from some time during April 2024 until the end of the tenancy on 1 September 2024 and that that impacted the tenant’s use of the premises. The deck was a large outdoor area, accessed directly off the lounge by double doors. I accept the tenant’s use of the premises was significantly impacted by the lack of use of the deck.
I also accept that the work impacted the tenant’s ability to use the designated carpark throughout the day. I accept that alternative parking located elsewhere within the complex was available to the tenant, and will take that into account when considering the amount to award in damages.
I accept that the tenant did not have intended use of the garage for storage from 28 July 2024 until the end of the tenancy on 1 September 2024. While a “work around” was arranged, in which some of the tenant’s belongings could be stored in the garage at the back, that was not a like-for-like alternative arrangement, and the storage of large items in the tenant’s home was an inconvenience for which he is entitled to compensation. The tribunal’s jurisdiction to order general damages
The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order general damages (see Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667).
The Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
The Tribunal’s general damages awards have historically been low. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing (supra) R E Neave DCJ described the Tribunal’s awards for emotional harm damages as “not particularly generous” and “fairly conservative.”
In that case, the tenant had returned to her unit and found someone had entered without her permission. It transpired contractors had done asbestos repair work in the tenant’s unit and the landlord had mistakenly failed to give the tenant notice of the entry. His Honour found the Tribunal’s award of $200.00 for emotional harm damages for the unlawful entry was “close to being derisory.” He substituted an award of in the sum of $2,000.00 finding “it was a significant intrusion on [the tenant’s] rights.”
With reference to Otautahi, in the Tribunal decision Penfold-Ulrich & Iu v Parklane Real Estate Limited [2025] NZTT 5049208 the Tribunal set out the following bands for awards for compensation: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00; b. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00. Analysis
The nature of the breach was a lack of use of areas of the premises, being the deck, the designated carpark, and the full use of the garage for storage. The breach also includes the impact of noise from construction, and the inconvenience and/or safety issues associated with construction.
The construction and inconvenience and associated safety issues commenced in April and continued to the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s use of the carpark was impacted for the same period. The tenant’s use of the garage for storage was impacted from 28 July 2024 until the tend of the tenancy.
The effect of the breach was that the tenant was unable to enjoy the premises as intended. The construction noise and safety issues impacted his, and his children’s, enjoyment of the premises. Their inability to use the deck off their lounge area impacted their daily use of the premises. The tenant did not incur actual costs in relation to making alternative carparking and storage arrangements, however, I accept both caused inconvenience to him and his family.
Taking into account the above findings, and the bands applied by the Tribunal in Penfold-Ulrich & Iu v Parklane Real Estate Limited (supra), I find the breaches were at the upper end of the lowest band, or the lowest end of the middle band.
Accordingly, I award $2,000.00 in compensation for the landlord’s breach of s38(2) of the RTA. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant’s application fee?
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim the landlord must reimburse the filing fee. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant applied for suppression of their name. The landlord also applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address.
Both the landlord’s application for rent arrears and water rates, and the tenant’s cross-application for damages, were successful. I do not consider publication of either party’s name is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, both the landlord and the tenant are entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4995948 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4995948 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the landlord liable for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment?

What occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the landlord liable for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment?

What occurred during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions