What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4998878 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 4998878?

andlordTenant Compensation: Kitchen…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heater purchase (Breac…: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998878?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998878?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11677414-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4998878 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 4998878?

andlordTenant Compensation: Kitchen…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heater purchase (Breac…: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998878?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998878?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11677414-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4998878 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4998878 — net $320.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
andlordTenant Compensation: Kitchen use (Breach: take all reasonable steps to ensure that the house rules are observed,	$100.00	andlordTenant Compensation: Kitchen use (Breach: take all reasonable steps to ensure that the house rules are observed
Compensation: Heater purchase (Breach: failure to maintain	$50.00	Heater purchase (Breach: failure to maintain
Refund bond BY CONSENT	$170.00	Refund bond BY CONSENT
Net award	$320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$320.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4998878 — net $320.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
andlordTenant Compensation: Kitchen use (Breach: take all reasonable steps to ensure that the house rules are observed,	$100.00	andlordTenant Compensation: Kitchen use (Breach: take all reasonable steps to ensure that the house rules are observed
Compensation: Heater purchase (Breach: failure to maintain	$50.00	Heater purchase (Breach: failure to maintain
Refund bond BY CONSENT	$170.00	Refund bond BY CONSENT
Net award	$320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$320.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
[Tenant 1]’s claims (as set out in the earlier order in this case dated 28 January 2025) are all dismissed save for compensation claims in relation to a) the kitchen (take all reasonable steps to ensure house rules observed and breach of quiet enjoyment), b) the heater (failure to maintain) and c) bond refund.
[The landlord/s] must pay Carey Nicholas Frost $320.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both [Tenant 1] and [the landlord/s] attended the hearing. THE PARTIES, THE PREMISES AND THE CLAIMS
[Tenant 1] has bought several claims. [Tenant 1] was afforded the opportunity to set out his claims in full at a case management hearing and his claims were set out in full in my earlier order dated 28 January 2025.
[Tenant 1] initially bought the application against [the landlord/s company] and its directors also as individuals. Who the landlord is, is not clear from the paperwork filed which refers to “[the landlord/s company]” and also refers to the names of the company directors as individuals, who are referred to as “manager owners”. It did not refer to the existence of a registered company.
During the hearing all of the parties agreed that it was [the landlord/s] who was the landlord, [the landlord/s] had received all rent for the premises.
The application therefore proceeded solely against [the landlord/s] and I accept this is the appropriate landlord.
[Tenant 1] rented one of a number of rooms in [the landlord/s] and had shared facilities. The parties say this is a boarding house. This is not disputed between the parties, and I have no reason to doubt this.
The written agreement filed shows that [Tenant 1] began boarding at the premises on 30 June 2020. That agreement was terminated following written notice from the landlord in September 2024. That notice gave [Tenant 1] 28 days’ notice.

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

As explained, as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, [Tenant 1]) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
Importantly, as noted 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.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

As [Tenant 1] is claiming exemplary damages for various breaches, I have set out what this means here. 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) RTA.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 (CA) Cooke P said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
As explained at the hearing s109(2)(b) RTA states that a tenant or landlord may not apply for exemplary damages 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. [TENANT 1]’S CLAIMS Breach of quiet enjoyment, breach of house rules, cleanliness (kitchen only) and use of facilities (kitchen only)
[Tenant 1] seeks compensation and exemplary damages for breach of his quiet enjoyment and for the landlord failing to enforce the house rules, cleanliness (kitchen) and use of the facilities (kitchen).
Section 66G Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) holds: (1) Every tenant of a boarding house is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises, without interruption by the landlord or another tenant of the boarding house. (2) The landlord must 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. (3) The tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other tenant on the premises. (4) Contravention of subsection (2) or (3) in circumstances that amount to harassment of a tenant is declared to be an unlawful act.
In relation to his claims for breach of quiet enjoyment [Tenant 1]’s complaints focus on the actions of other tenants rather than his quiet enjoyment being interrupted by the landlord itself. For example, this is not the case where, for example, [Tenant 1] alleges that the landlord was carrying out or had arranged maintenance for prolonged periods at unreasonable hours.
For tenants other than boarding house tenants there is a responsibility on a landlord pursuant to s 45(1)(e) RTA to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant. Thus, in that type of tenancy where a landlord does not address the problem a tenant has with another tenant the tenant could take action against the landlord under s 45(1)(e). There is no equivalent provision for boarding house tenants. However, where a landlord does not address the problem, it may be that s 66G(2) RTA can be the basis of an action against the landlord for “causing” or “permitting” the interference. This is referred to above in s 66G(2).
Section 66I(h) RTA sets out that the landlord must at all times take all reasonable steps to ensure that the house rules are observed, and to enforce them in a fair and consistent manner. Noise
[Tenant 1] says that his quiet enjoyment was breached by noise from neighbours. He also says that reasonable steps were not taken by the landlord to enforce the house rules in relation to the boarding house rules in relation to noise. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The house rules in relation to noise state: “the impact of noise on other residents must be always considered. Noise/music levels must be kept to a fair and reasonable level so that adjoining unit rooms are not disturbed by noise nuisance impacting on others quiet and peace”.
[Tenant 1] says that when another boarder ([Tenant 2]) moved into his block his TV was turned up to unacceptable levels and his stereo would be left on all night. This took place from June 2021 to mid-August 2021 when [Tenant 2] then changed his room. He says he personally discussed the issue with the landlord and the property manager and refers to two emails sent in August 2021 relating to this issue.
The landlord says that when the issue was bought it to his attention, he called [Tenant 2] about it and also investigated the issue on a couple of occasions and that he did not consider the noise level to be unreasonable – he says it was barely audible.
[Tenant 1] also says that another neighbour ([Tenant 3]) was noisy after he moved into the building on Christmas Eve in 2023. [Tenant 1] refers to [Tenant 3]’s TV screaming or being at an unreasonable level. He says he addressed this with the manager and asked her to deal with this early on after the occupant moved in, but he says that nothing happened. He says that he kept advising the manager and the landlord and eventually he sent the landlord a 14-day notice in June 2024.
Referring to a log of the occasions he experienced and reported noise to the landlord involving [Tenant 3], [Tenant 1] says this took place on 8 February 2024, 20 February 2024, 20 March 2024, 26 March 2024 and 3 April 2024. He also says he sent texts. He says that after he sent a 14-day notice to the landlord there was no further issue.
The landlord says that complaints that were made were always attended to and not ignored. A was spoken to keep his TV at a mindful level by the manager. After receiving a 14-day notice from [Tenant 1] on 26 June 2024 the landlord replied to [Tenant 1] advising that [Tenant 3] had been using headphones to avoid noise problems but maybe on occasion the cable has become unplugged when he falls asleep and rolls over. The landlord passes on the message that [Tenant 3] advises the landlord that there is no intent to purposely cause any noise problems.
I find that when living in a shared environment it is to be expected that there will be some noise transferring between individual rooms. I am not satisfied that [Tenant 1] has sufficiently proven that the noise was to the level complained of and that the landlord permitted interference with [Tenant 1]’s reasonable peace and comfort in relation to the occasions referred to by [Tenant 1]. I am satisfied that the action taken by the landlord to have been sufficient.
I also find, based on the evidence before me, the action that was taken by the landlord to be sufficient to reasonably enforce the house rules given the nature and frequency of the noise [Tenant 1] says he experienced.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Kitchen
[Tenant 1] says that his quiet enjoyment was also breached by the way in which another tenant would leave the kitchen. He also says that reasonable steps were not taken by the landlord to enforce the rules in relation to the kitchen. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The kitchen has signs setting out the rules. They include the following statements: “we require every resident to clean up after they have used this facility. This means: No dirty dishes or cutlery left behind on the bench. No washed dishes left to drip dry on the bench. No coffee/tea cups rinsed (or not) left on the bench. Wash dishes with soap liquid – towel dry and put away. Wipe clean the bench & stove top with damp cloth... Kitchen Rules Please wash and dry all dishes and leave the table and bench clean....”
[Tenant 1] says that the shared kitchen was left unclean. He says that another boarder, [Tenant 2] would not clean up after himself. He says mess and filth would be left overnight. He says that when dishes were left he could not use the facilities. He presented a huge volume of photographs which documented numerous occasions on which he experienced this. [Tenant 1] says this caused mice.
[Tenant 1] says that he discussed the issue with the landlord when [Tenant 2] moved in and that he was assured he was spoken to, but the position kept occurring from when [Tenant 2] moved in right up to the day when [Tenant 1] moved out. [Tenant 1] says he raised it again and again with the landlord.
He says there was a brief improvement after he served a 14 day notice in May 2024 but the mess continued. He says that he raised the issue again and again, constantly raising it as an issue.
The landlord says that there were so many messages about the kitchen it was impossible to count them. He did not keep a record. When he would get a message, the landlord says that would call [Tenant 2] and on numerous occasions [Tenant 2] would say that he was just eating his food and then would be returning to tidy up. Further, the landlord says that cleaners came daily would come in and clean and put away dishes and offenders would then get spoken to. [Tenant 1] disputes the cleaners did the dishes.
The landlord considered that the situation had become unhealthy with [Tenant 1] taking hundreds of photographs of dishes on benches. The landlord said that he did go and look at the problems on some of the occasions when [Tenant 1] had reported it. A few times there would be a pot with a spillage but other times it was unwarranted such as just such a minor issue like a dribble or a plate/knife/fork. The landlord says that he did offer to move [Tenant 1] to a different room in August 2022 and this is in a letter provided, but this offer was not taken up. The landlord denies mice being caused by the dishes.
The volume of photographs provided by [Tenant 1] show an issue that varies in nature: From a pan being left in the sink to soak, to dishes being left in the sink to a pot being left on the stove to dishes left to dry on the bench. I am not satisfied that the dishes would have stopped [Tenant 1] using the kitchen or that it would have been the cause of mice but it is clear that dishes were being left at times and [Tenant 1] did not think this was acceptable.
I am satisfied that with the repeated leaving of dishes, [Tenant 2] breached [Tenant 1]’s quiet enjoyment and that the landlord has permitted [Tenant 1]’s quiet enjoyment to be breached. This is because I consider that in permitting this activity to continue the landlord has turned a “blind eye to the obvious” and not taken “reasonable steps to prevent” the breach (see Hughes v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Porirua (no file number), 13 December 2006). The landlord was clearly aware that this was occurring and was a repeated problem. While the landlord’s evidence is that he spoke with [Tenant 2], I consider that given the number of occasions in which this was reported to have occurred, this justified a more serious response to [Tenant 2] than simply telephone calls.
It is only where the breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
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.
I do not consider that the actions amounted to harassment or the landlord permitting harassment. I do not consider that the dishes being left were directed at [Tenant 1], rather, they were simply left. I also do not think it would be fair to award exemplary damages when the landlord offered to move [Tenant 1] to another room in 2022 so that [Tenant 1] did not have to deal with the ongoing the situation anymore. I therefore decline to award exemplary damages.
I have considered compensation below.
The rules state how the kitchen must be left. It was clearly not left by [Tenant 2] in such a way as described by the rules. [Tenant 1] has proven that on multiple occasions dishes/pots were left. The house rules make it obvious that the kitchen is expected to be totally clear of dishes and that tenants need to clean up after themselves.
Given the fact that [Tenant 2] was repeatedly leaving dishes and [Tenant 1] was repeatedly complaining about them to the landlord I accept that reasonable steps were not taken by the landlord to enforce the rules in relation to the kitchen. I consider simply speaking to [Tenant 2] not to be sufficient given the multiple occasions on which [Tenant 1] experienced dishes/pots on the bench/stove.
No exemplary damages are awarded in relation to this breach because exemplary damages can only be awarded for unlawful acts. Only certain breaches of the RTA have been identified by the legislation as being unlawful acts. A breach relating to the enforcement of house rules is not an unlawful act. In other words, exemplary damages are not available in the legislation for this particular breach.
I must still consider compensation. I do not consider that any of the photographs show a kitchen that is anything near unusable or “filth” as [Tenant 1] describes the kitchen. Most, of the photographs show a situation whereby [Tenant 1] could have mitigated his loss by move dishes / pots and carrying on.
I have considered very carefully whether to award compensation. I consider that the loss of amenity due to [Tenant 2]’s dishes/pots would have been minimal. Further, [Tenant 1] could have mitigated his loss by taking up the landlord’s offer in August 2022 to move rooms.
Taking in to account the above factors overall I award compensation of $100 to compensate [Tenant 1] for a minimal loss of amenity.
In this context, [Tenant 1] also says that the state of the kitchen as left by [Tenant 2] and described above, meant that the landlord did not ensure that the facilities were kept reasonably clean (section 66I(1)(a) RTA)). He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
I dismiss this part of [Tenant 1]’s claim. I find that while [Tenant 2] did leave dishes on the bench or stove top at various times, this is not insufficient to find that the landlord failed to keep the kitchen reasonably clean. A kitchen does not have to be immaculate. It is a living space to be used by residents. I heard how cleaners came frequently. This part of the claim is dismissed.
[Tenant 1] also says that in this context the state of the kitchen as left by [Tenant 2] meant that he did not have access to facilities in the premises (see section 66I(1)(f) RTA). He seeks compensation and exemplary damages. I do not accept that the issues that [Tenant 1] had with [Tenant 2] and his dishes meant that the facilities were not available for use. I dismiss this part of the claim. Assault by [Tenant 2]
[Tenant 1] says that the landlord has also permitted his quiet enjoyment to have been breached in relation to an assault by [Tenant 2] and that reasonable steps were not taken by the landlord to enforce the rules in relation to this. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
He says that in 2021 he went to tell [Tenant 2] to tidy up the kitchen and [Tenant 2] grabbed him and threated him. [Tenant 2] was given a warning by the police.
The landlord says that he was told about this by [Tenant 2]. He says that this happened because [Tenant 1] would put [Tenant 2]’s dishes in his doorway and [Tenant 2] heard him doing this. The landlord says that he spoke to [Tenant 2] and make it clear he could not touch people and to keep his distance.
I am not satisfied that this a breach of quiet enjoyment that the landlord has permitted. I am not satisfied that an assault is something the landlord has permitted or taken a blind eye towards happening. Once he knew of the assault, I am satisfied that he made it clear to [Tenant 2] that the behaviour was not tolerated.
This part of the claim is dismissed.
I am not satisfied that there is an applicable house rule that has not been enforced in relation to this activity. [Tenant 1] could not identify one. This part of the claim is dismissed.
I also record here that, in any event, even if [Tenant 1] was successful here, the alleged unlawful act took place well over 12 months prior to the lodging of this application so exemplary damages would not be available. I am also not satisfied that [Tenant 1] suffered any loss upon which I would award compensation. Threats and stealing mail by [Tenant 4]
[Tenant 1] says that the landlord has also permitted his quiet enjoyment to have been breached in relation to his mail being taken by another tenant (Tenant 4) who also threatened him and steps were not taken by the landlord to enforce the rules in relation to these actions. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
[Tenant 1] says that in December 2022 he noticed he had not had mail for 6 or 7 weeks. He told the site manager and she said she would keep an eye out. Mail is put into mailboxes by the office. [Tenant 1] then discovered in mid- December missing mail and discussed this with the office. The manager in the office then checked the CCTV and discovered who it was. I heard how [Tenant 1] was told the landlord knew who it was but this time [Tenant 1] did not want to know so that it did not ruin his weekend. [Tenant 1] says it was [Tenant 2] who told him it was [Tenant 4]. He says that the landlord would not give him the CCTV and by the time the police were involved the video had been overwritten.
[Tenant 1] says he was then threatened by [Tenant 4] in January 2023. The police report records that [Tenant 1] was said to be glaring at [Tenant 4]. This resulted in a confrontation where [Tenant 4] said, “I am going to loosen your teeth”. No arrest or charges were laid. It records a formal warning being given. The threat was admitted. The police report records the incident as taking place on 27 January 2023.
[Tenant 1] says that in May 2023 [Tenant 4] also threatened him again with abuse and a threat to kill. The police report provided notes that this took place by the mailboxes and records “no police action required at this time, appears to be a tit for tat situation that is unlikely to result in actual violence”. The police report sets out that [Tenant 4] denied the threat of harm but accepted that words were exchanged. It notes there are no independent witnesses and insufficient evidence for prosecution. It noted ongoing issues between [Tenant 4] and [Tenant 1].
The landlord admits that [Tenant 4] was the person taking [Tenant 1]’s mail as he was picked up on CCTV.
[Tenant 1]’s statement to the police on the issue of the mail tampering is provided and this sets out that on 22 December the manager confirmed it was [Tenant 4] who had taken the mail. An email from the landlord to [Tenant 1] on 20 December advises him that if he wants to take it further, he should involve the police and that the CCTV would be provided to the police – it notes the CCTV recordings only last about 7 days.
The landlord says as a result of the mail incident [Tenant 4]’s tenancy was ended. The landlord could not say when [Tenant 4] was removed nor provide an estimate, but [Tenant 1] says that [Tenant 4] left in December 2023 and, in the absence of any contrary evidence, I have no reason to doubt that.
The landlord says that [Tenant 4] was spoken to about the incident on 27 January 2023. In relation to the May 2023 incident the landlord says that there was a meeting with the police in relation to this. The police report notes that there was a prevention meeting with the landlord and [Tenant 4].
I am not satisfied that the landlord caused or permitted interference with [Tenant 1]’s peace comfort or privacy in respect of the mail that was taken by [Tenant 4]. There is no evidence of the landlord knowing about this happening before it was discovered in December 2022 and there is no evidence it occurred again once it was discovered by the landlord.
I also do not think the landlord turned a blind eye or took unreasonable steps to prevent the threat that was made in January 2023. The landlord says he spoke to [Tenant 4] about the incident once it had occurred. There are no reported incidents of a similar nature until May 2023.
While a further incident took place in May 2023, the difficulty here is that the police described this as a tit for tat situation. The landlord here had a meeting with the police and [Tenant 4], and I consider this to be a reasonable step in the management of the issue given the limited admissions made. The police report also records that in May 2023 both parties were asked if they would move rooms but both parties refused. There are no more reported incidents from [Tenant 1]. Again, this indicates that the matter was resolved.
I therefore find that [Tenant 1] has not established that the landlord caused or permitted any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of [Tenant 1] in the use of the premises by [Tenant 1] in relation to the incidents involving [Tenant 4] described above. This part of the claim is dismissed.
In any event, I note that these incidents all occurred more than 12 months prior to [Tenant 1]’s application so, even if they did amount to an unlawful act, exemplary damages could not be awarded (see s 109(b) RTA). Further, even if a breach was established, I am not satisfied that [Tenant 1] has proven any loss upon which I could award compensation.
I am not satisfied that there is an applicable house rule that has not been enforced in relation to this activity. [Tenant 1] could not identify one. This part of the claim is dismissed. Smoking and drug use
[Tenant 1] says that the landlord has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the house rules are observed in relation to smoking and drugs. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The house rules in relation to smoking include: “No smoking/vaping inside [the landlord/s] buildings at any time... Smoking at any time in an area inside the apartment facilities is not permitted. Please use the designated smoking area...or wet days under front veranda walkway”.
He says that the smoking rules have been breached by [Tenant 4]’s conduct. He says [Tenant 4] smoked in his room. [Tenant 1] referred to an occasion on 2 August 2022. The landlord responded by putting a notice out for everyone not long after this occurred. The landlord says a notice was sent to everyone reminding them of their obligations and that [Tenant 1] would also breach smoking rules from time to time. I am satisfied that this was a reasonable step to take. I find that [Tenant 1] has not established a breach in relation to this.
The house rules in relation to drugs include: “This is a ZERO tolerance policy – the taking of any illegal substances is prohibited... any person found using or selling illegal substances may face eviction.. The use of cannabis is prohibited anyone found using will be issued a formal letter of warning”.
[Tenant 1] says that [Tenant 2] used marijuana in the building and that [Tenant 1] raised this with the landlord. It was the first week he lived there. [Tenant 2] was leaning out of his window smoking a pipe and what [Tenant 1] assumed was marijuana. [Tenant 1] ways he raised it with the landlord at the time who said he would speak to [Tenant 2] about it. Two days later he says he could smell marijuana coming from [Tenant 2]’s room. He saw the landlord a few days later to report this and it happened on few other occasions in 2021 too. [Tenant 1] then told the landlord he would call the police unless it stopped. It then stopped. [Tenant 1] referred to emails about the use on 13 June 2021, 15 June 2021, 22 July 2021. These emails all are around the time when [Tenant 2] first moved into the property.
The landlord says every time he was told about this he spoke to [Tenant 2]. The landlord does not dispute [Tenant 2] using marijuana. However, the landlord says it takes a dim view of drug use and [Tenant 2] was made very aware that it was breaking the house rule, and he did stop.
In relation to drug use I do not find that the landlord did not take a zero tolerance approach as set out in the house rules. The approach taken by the landlord was far more relaxed, speaking to [Tenant 2] rather than issuing any formal notice. I find that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to ensure that the house rule was observed in relation to [Tenant 2]’s drug use. Given that repeated breaches were reported I would expect a formal notice to be given in line with the house rules.
As set out for reasons above, I am unable to award exemplary damages in relation to a breach in relation to the landlord not taking reasonable steps to ensure that the house rules are observed. In any event, if exemplary damages were available, it occurred in 2021 and this is significantly over the 12-month statutory period described above for bringing such a claim.
I also decline to award compensation. I am not satisfied that [Tenant 1] has proven a loss in relation to this breach. Failure to maintain
The landlord of a boarding house must, at all times ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes (section 66I(1)(b) RTA). Heater
[Tenant 1] says that the bar heater in his room was not working correctly. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages. He says that the landlord failed to maintain this in a reasonable manner. He says that it would fizz and that he mentioned this in June 2022 to the manager. The manager said she would put it on a list to be looked at. [Tenant 1] says it was never looked at.
The landlord says that because of the age of the bar heaters in the rooms a decision had been made not to reinstall these but that [Tenant 1] was given a fan heater. The landlord was always happy to supply these as he had them available.
[Tenant 1] says that he did not get the fan heater from the landlord. [Tenant 1] says that he went and purchased a fan heater. He says that he told the manager (in the context of the bar heater not working) that he would go and get one for himself and she did not say that one was available for him to use.
I am satisfied that the heater in [Tenant 1]’s room did not work and that he notified the manager of this and that it was not fixed and that he purchased his own fan heater. I find there has been a failure to maintain.
A tenant has a duty to mitigate any loss which may involve taking formal steps to notify a landlord of an issue that requires remedying. Power was included as part of the services provided by the landlord so that is not relevant to the type of heater that was running. Further, [Tenant 1] told the manager that he would get a fan heater which he says he did.
Given the nature and circumstances of this breach, I find that it would not be just to award exemplary damages. It has arisen over a miscommunication. However, I find it reasonable to award some compensation for the fan heater that I accept that [Tenant 1] bought for himself. No receipt was provided but, in the absence of this, I consider that a sum of $50 would be reasonable and appropriate. I award this. Stove
[Tenant 1] says two elements on the stove stopped working in 2021. He seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
He says he advised of the need for this maintenance numerous times verbally. He says it got fixed in June 2024. The landlord says that there are 13 stoves at the premises and it is common for an element to go from time to time. They are repaired in a timely fashion – not in weeks or months as described here. Reserve stoves are available. The landlord refutes this claim completely.
I find that [Tenant 1] has not proven that the stove was broken, if and when it developed that issue or when the landlord was notified.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice to end the tenancy
The Tribunal may declare a notice to terminate a tenancy of no effect, and retaliatory if in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by [Tenant 1] of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on [Tenant 1] by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act or any complaint by [Tenant 1] against the landlord relating to the tenancy. See section 54 of the RTA.
[Tenant 1] says the notice he was given on 16 September 2024 to terminate his boarding house tenancy is retaliatory to his application before the Tribunal. [Tenant 1] says that the only reason the landlord had to evict him was his application to the Tribunal. He seeks compensation.
[Tenant 1] says on 12 April the landlord came to his door and threatened him saying if he complained about the kitchen or noise again he would evict him. [Tenant 1] said to put that in writing and then slammed the door. He followed this up in an email. [Tenant 1] filed his application to the Tribunal in respect of this claim on 9 September 2024.
[Tenant 1] vacated the tenancy prior to the hearing and therefore the remedy, if [Tenant 1] is successful in respect of this claim, would be compensation which is what [Tenant 1] has requested.
The landlord was served with a preliminary notice of [Tenant 1]’s claim on 9 September 2024. This advised it of the fact an application had been received and details of the tenancy address (including the room). Full details including the application itself and the evidence that had been filed were sent to the landlord on 6 November 2024.
The landlord provided an undated statement from [Tenant 3] who lives next door to [Tenant 1]. That statement says [Tenant 1] had ‘stepped up his game’. It says [Tenant 1] had turned the power supply off to [Tenant 3]’s room which had impacted the dialysis machine. The dialysis machine is hooked up to the hospital and they had asked him why the power was being turn off. [Tenant 3] says that [Tenant 1] is turning the power off. [Tenant 3] says he was seen there (the power box being by the showers). The landlord says he did not act on what he was told by [Tenant 3] in that moment, but he reflected on it.
The landlord says he spoke to [Tenant 1] about the accusation saying that he did not know if [Tenant 1] did it but if he did it would not be good to do it again as the landlord would take it further. This was not the threat as [Tenant 1] described it. The landlord says his style of management is calm and not aggressive as [Tenant 1] says.
The landlord says that a week to 10 days went by and the landlord was told the power had gone off again. The landlord says it was an outage just to the same area not the whole complex or a general outage. He let the situation be and several weeks passed.
The landlord says that there had been a lot of events involving [Tenant 1] falling out with others and there were always issues with him and others. While the others may have been at fault, he considered that [Tenant 1] was the instigator. The landlord says it was just time for him to find a new place as it was not the best fit for him.
[Tenant 1] denies any involvement concerning the power and notes he did not refer to that in his email. He would expect something so serious to be handled immediately and in writing by the landlord.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by [Tenant 1] asserting the right.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by [Tenant 1]’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that [Tenant 1] gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.
On balance given the dates concerned I find it more likely than not that the landlord terminated [Tenant 1]’s tenancy at least in part due to the application filed with the Tribunal and therefore is retaliatory.
The discussion concerning the power took place in April and the landlord’s evidence is that 10 days later the power went off again and then he let the situation be, and weeks passed. There is a considerable number of weeks between April and September when [Tenant 1] was given the notice. The notice was given just days after the landlord would have had notice that [Tenant 1] was making an application to the Tribunal.
However, while I find that there has been a retaliatory notice, I decline to award compensation. [Tenant 1]’s evidence was that he was seeking $750 for moving costs but he provided no evidence of that or detail in support. I am not satisfied that any loss is proven. [Tenant 1]’s claim is dismissed. Costs
[Tenant 1]’s application included a number of receipts for costs involved in preparing for this hearing. Such costs are not generally recoverable in the Tribunal (s 102 RTA). In any event, [Tenant 1] has not been substantially successful in relation to his claims and so I would not order these in any event. Bond refund to tenant
[Tenant 1] sought the refund of his bond of $170. The landlord agreed to this at the previous hearing. I have therefore ordered this.

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

I decline to award the filing fee because [Tenant 1]’s success has been extremely limited proportionately to the claims he has bought.
Both parties sought suppression of their identifying details. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name 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 (s95A RTA).
I consider that the most successful party here is the landlord. This is because the majority of the claims bought by [Tenant 1] have not been successful and the sums that have been ordered are substantially lower than the sums sought. I consider the landlord has not been wholly successful but has been substantially successful. I award the landlord suppression of its identifying details.
I consider that [Tenant 1] has not been wholly or substantially successful. I therefore decline to award him name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998878 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998878 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

CIVIL BURDEN OF PROOF

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions