What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066651 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 5066651?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066651?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11673454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066651 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 5066651?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066651?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11673454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

75A O'Donnell Avenue, Wesley, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5066651 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5066651 — net $8,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$8,900.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond		$500.00	Failing to lodge bond
Total award	$8,900.00	$500.00
Net award	$8,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5066651 — net $8,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$8,900.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond		$500.00	Failing to lodge bond
Total award	$8,900.00	$500.00
Net award	$8,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,400.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant & Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $8,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for damage to the property and not leaving on the day the tenancy ended.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for compensation for damage to their possessions stored in the outdoor room.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a claim and counter claim, scheduled to be heard together. Background:
In January 2023, this property was badly damaged in the “Auckland Floods”. The entire house had to be renovated. The tenants were the first tenants to take over the property after the rebuilding of the home. The home was completely rebuilt to the extent that the house presented as a new build.
The property comprised of two houses with a shared driveway. The tenant’s home was the rear of the two houses.
Attached to the tenant’s home was a large outdoor room that was semi closed in and used as an outside living space for family gatherings and recreation.
The tenancy commenced on 17 February 2024.
There is a dispute between the parties about the claims made regarding the outdoor room. The landlord says the outdoor room is solely intended as an outdoor living space. The tenants say they were told that they could store their possessions, including furniture in the outdoor room.
The significance of this is that the outdoor room flooded due to problems with the drains. The tenant had been storing property in the outdoor room and it was destroyed.
The tenants seek compensation for the loss of property but have not quantified that loss. Therefore, I cannot consider any compensation claims for lost property due to flooding in the outdoor room. I am dismissing their claim for compensation for damage to possessions in the outdoor room.
While I have considered all the evidence given during the hearing about the use of the outdoor room, I find that this was an outdoor semi contained area and not one that could reasonably be expected to store and protect furniture and possessions.
Shortly after the start of the tenancy, flooding issues began with the outdoor room. The Tribunal was provided with photos and video’s showing the flooded area and debris rising from the drain.
The tenants say this is an example of the landlord failure to maintain.
At the commencement of the tenancy the Wi-Fi was not connected and there was no running water in the laundry. The Wi-Fi was waiting to be reconnected after the rebuild, and the plumber needed to finalise a few details.
The outdoor room roof had a leak in it, and it was repaired immediately after the landlord was advised.
There does not seem to be any dispute that the landlord attended to any requests for repairs immediately and gave a rent reduction over this time period.
The tenancy ended on 9 th December 2024 after the landlord gave 63 days- notice to terminate. Landlord claims:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 9 th December 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount $8900.00 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants do not dispute that they owe this money in rent arrears.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears. Damages:
The landlord made several claims of damages during the hearing. However, they decided not to pursue the issue of the cabinet door nor filter cap. There were discussions about a laundry door being damaged because it was not closed, and it flew off in the wind.
However, I have not been provided with any proof of loss, therefore I am dismissing that claim. Not leaving on required day:
The landlord claims the tenant did not move on the day they were meant too. The tenants say they did. The rent arrears are paid up till9th December 2024.
This claim was not advanced during the hearing and so I am dismissing the claim. Tenants’ claims:
The tenants have filed a number of claims against the landlord. Many of these claim’s overlap. The following are the specific claims made by the tenants: -The landlord breached their quiet enjoyment. -The landlord failed to lodge the bond with the bond centre. -The landlord served the tenants with notice that was retaliatory. -That the landlord allowed the other neighbouring tenants to disturb their quiet enjoyment and cause disturbance. -That the landlord failed to maintain the property, in regard to the drainage. Failure to maintain- drainage:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case it was clear that there were issues with the drainage and moisture ingress. The landlord said this was made worse by the flooding in 2023. The landlord said that the severe flooding prior to the tenancy had redirected water ways in the neighbour. The landlord had worked with plumbers and the local council to obtain a remedy for the issues.
The landlord was unaware of the issues with the drains after the 2023 flooding and the renovation of the property.
The landlord said, and the tenants did not dispute that when ever there were issues at the property suitable tradespeople were immediately sent to remedy problems. In particular plumbers to clear drains and the cesspit, connect the water to the laundry tub, electricians to install air conditioning, and install fibre.
Despite the obvious problems the tenants encountered at the property I have determined that the landlord was pro active and prompt with sending tradespeople to fix things. That the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to remedy the issues.
I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act and I dismiss the tenants claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property. Tenant claim landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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 tenants say that the landlord has turned up unannounced and been aggressive and yelling at them. They describe a time when the landlord and his wife turned up unannounced and yelled that they should move out if they are not going to pay their rent. The tenants said in reply that when the repairs are done on the house, they will pay the rent.
The landlord’s son was with his parents and helped to calm down his parents. The son explained at the hearing that the family had serious financial problems trying to pay the mortgage on the house when the tenants were not paying their rent.
The father is a full time minister at a local church, the son is in full time student and the mother is the only one in paid employment. They still had to provide accommodation and living costs for themselves in addition to the mortgage on the house.
This appeared to have been a one off incident and generally the landlords kept away from the property unless asked by the tenants to come over. There was no pattern of behaviour directed at the tenants with the intent to cause distress or worry.
The flooding events were very stressful for all parties. The tenants have not satisfied me that the landlord intentionally breached their quiet enjoyment.
The very nature of serious flooding issues such as this are unpleasant for all parties.
The tenants said that the neighbouring tenants would disturb them, and that the landlord should have intervened to stop the disturbance. The landlord said they did speak to the other tenants about these complaints. The other tenants accused the tenants of similar disturbances. Regardless I am satisfied that the landlord used reasonable steps to talk to the other tenants and try to resolve the disturbances between the neighbours. Failure to lodge bond:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that they did not lodge the bond in the correct time frame. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted that they had not filed the bond within 23 working days. They say they did not intend to commit this breach, and that the tenant’s bond had gone into a bank account because they had concerns about the tenants not paying their rent.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or did not realise, they had to do so, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01).
In TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the Judge said “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." Para 37.
I award the tenants exemplary damages of $500.00 for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, this takes into account: -That the landlord has another tenancy in the front house and would have known his obligation to lodge the bond. -Held onto the bond to cover unpaid rent, thereby showing an intent to not lodge the bond in the required time frame. Retaliatory Notice:
The landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 9 th December 2024. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect: section 54 RTA. -S54 (1) Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. -S54(2)If, on any such application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord was so motivated in giving the notice, it shall declare the notice to be of no effect unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. -S54(3) The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (2) to be of no
Shortly after a disagreement on 4 October 2024, where the landlords turned up unannounced, the tenants received an email from the landlord . The email advised the tenants that the landlord was looking to move in back into the property.
The tenants were given 63 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenants were upset and now claim that this was retaliatory because they of the outgoing disputes and arguments with the landlord over faults with the property.
The purpose behind the Tribunal having the power to declare a termination notice retaliatory and of no effect is to prevent landlords from discriminating against those who assert their rights as tenants or make complaints by ending their tenancy.
S54 of the RTA is designed to protect tenants but not from the legitimate decision any landlord may make to sell their property.
At the hearing, the landlord and his son confirmed that they needed to home for themselves and their extended family.
The tenants subsequently moved out on 9 th December 2024.
I do not find that the landlord was motivated to terminate the tenancy for any other reason than that the owners needed the home for their family.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for retaliatory notice. Suppression and filing fee:
Because [The applicant/s] has partial been succeeded with the claim I would have to reimburse the filing fee, to both. I am not awarding any filing fee to either party.
Both parties applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. As both parties have been partially successful, I am granting suppression to the tenants and the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066651 — Rent arrears at 75A O'Donnell Avenue, Wesley, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066651 — Rent arrears at 75A O'Donnell Avenue, Wesley, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions