What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5067428 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 5067428?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $449.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,025.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $445.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067428?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11355277-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5067428 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 5067428?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $449.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,025.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $445.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067428?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11355277-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Glenn Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5067428 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067428 — net $2,466.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,025.00	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$449.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$445.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,466.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,466.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067428 — net $2,466.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,025.00	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$449.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$445.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,466.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,466.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
Shayna Michelle Lee Williams and Jesse Sundman must pay the landlord $2,466.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 (5399701-007) to the landlord immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$3,025.00 Lock/key replacement$449.00 Rubbish removal$445.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$3,946.00 Bond$1,480.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,466.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The 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.
As detailed in the Tribunal’s order of 25 November 2024 (“the Order”), the tenant’s claims were for compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Failing to maintain the property in relation to: i. The kitchen and bathroom fans. ii. The toilet and taps running. iii. Gutters not being cleaned. iv. Dangerous heating and wiring. v. The fences, concrete and retaining wall. vi. Poisonous plants on the premises. vii. See section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Failing to insulate the house property. See section 45(1)(c) RTA. c. Breaching the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment. See section 38 RTA. d. Unlawfully entering the house property. See section 48(4) RTA. e. Unlawfully changing the locks. See section 46(2) RTA. f. Failing to provide smoke alarms. See section 45(1)(ba) RTA. g. Failing to provide a handrail for the front steps. See section 45(1)(c) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) RTA requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications with this requirement in mind. Landlord’s claim for rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 27 November 2024 pursuant to the Order. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Landlord’s claim for compensation
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The tenant did not dispute the landlord’s claims at the hearing.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s claim: failure to maintain
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain or repair in a reasonable timeframe the matters listed above in paragraph 3. Each of these items was considered separately at the hearing.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises”.
The landlord is only required to provide and maintain the premises in a “reasonable” state of repair. The standard is not absolute and is to be assessed objectively. It is also qualified by the age and character of the premises and the period the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. The standard of repair is not “as new” or perfect. A landlord does not have to improve the tenancy property.
The landlord’s obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a time frame which is reasonable in the circumstances. What is a reasonable time frame depends on the gravity of the problem and also on the attempts made by the landlord to investigate and fix the problem.
The tenant provided photographs of various aspects of the property in support of her claims. She was unable to provide evidence of when she first brought matters to the attention of the landlord.
A text message from the tenant to the landlord around the time the landlord gave notice of termination refers to the tenant having issued a 14-day notice. The landlord responded to the tenant advising that it had not been received. The tenant did not provide a copy in her evidence. The Tribunal must conclude that it was not issued.
In the evidence filed by the landlord with the Tribunal is a text dated 20 November 2024 (after the tenant had filed their application and after the date the tenant had notified the landlord that they would have vacated the property) from the tenant to the landlord listing a variety of grievances, including some of those which have formed part of their claim.
The landlord provided evidence of text and email communications about issues and the landlord’s responses. The landlord noted that the issues were only raised once the landlord had given notice of termination of the tenancy on 7 October 2024.
The Tribunal has considered each of the tenant’s claims and determines each one as follows: a. This tenancy started on 6 February 2020. The Healthy Homes Standards did not therefore apply to this tenancy and so the landlord was under no obligation to install extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord gave evidence that the bathroom extractor fan was fixed once the issue was brought to the landlord’s attention. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. b. The tenant provided no evidence of prolonged or repeated complaints to the landlord about the cistern or taps leaking or dripping. The landlord provided evidence that a plumber was sent to the property to fit two new taps and fix the cistern. The landlord offered to replace the toilet but this was declined by the tenant as they were vacating. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. c. The tenant claimed without supplying any evidence that the gutters were never cleaned during the tenancy. The landlord denied this and advised that the male tenant had at one stage told the landlord that he had cleaned the gutters. After a later inspection, the landlord advised the tenant that the gutters would be cleaned. The male tenant responded to say that he would clear them. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. d. The tenant claimed that the wiring in the house was dangerous. This was unsupported by any evidence. The landlord had the electrical works checked by an electrical firm and supplied in evidence a letter dated 10 October 2024 confirming that the electrical installation in the property was safe. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. e. The tenant claimed that the fencing was “dangerous” and “sharp”. She supplied photographs of the fences and claimed that she had raised this issue with the landlord on many occasions. The landlord denied receiving any complaints until after the termination notice was issued. He explained that the property was semi-rural and the fencing was in keeping with its nature. The tenant did not indicate what by-law, regulation or legal requirement the landlord breached by fencing the property in this way. The fence appears to have operated as a satisfactory boundary fence and the tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that the landlord had any further legal responsibility. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. f. The tenant claimed that there were poisonous plants on the premises. While claiming to be a gardener, she could not identify what or which plants were poisonous. She provided no evidence. The landlord explained that when the tenant raised this issue, he inspected the property and discovered an oleander bush on the fence line which he had removed. The tenant has failed to establish the identity of the poisonous plants, the landlord’s legal responsibility to remove them, or his failure to do so when he identified a poisonous plant. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s claims were all without merit. They were almost entirely unsupported by evidence or any legal basis and they have all been dismissed. Tenant’s claim: insulation
Once again, the tenant produced no evidence in support of this claim other than to claim that the property was cold and draughty.
The landlord provided an insulation statement from 2019 confirming that the property’s insulation was Healthy Homes compliant.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: failing to provide smoke alarms
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not provide smoke alarms for the property. It appeared that her basis for this allegation was that the landlord purchased four new smoke alarms for the property in October 2024. She provided no other evidence.
The landlord explained and provided evidence in texts with the male tenant that: a. The tenant advised that the smoke alarms were not working. b. The landlord responded that the batteries were probably flat and required replacement. c. Despite it being the tenant’s responsibility to replace smoke alarm batteries, the landlord supplied new smoke alarms and paid the male tenant to install them.
The tenant has failed to provide any evidence that the landlord failed to provide smoke alarms. As with many of the tenant’s claims, the bulk, if not all the evidence before the Tribunal in relation to this claim has been provided by the landlord. This is despite the comments addressed to both parties in paragraphs 18 to 20 of the Order setting out the standard and burden of proof and the necessity of a claimant producing supporting evidence.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: handrail
The tenant claimed that the landlord was under an obligation to provide a handrail to the front doorsteps. Other than a photograph of the steps, she did not supply any authority for this assertion such as a building code reference, by- law, or an independent opinion from a qualified person.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: unlawfully changing the locks and unlawful entry
Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant could not recall any dates or details regarding her claim. She filed no supporting evidence. However, the landlord confirmed that he changed the locks without obtaining the tenant’s consent and once again provided evidence of an email exchange with the mail tenant confirming the following sequence of events: a. The tenant had given the landlord notice that the tenants would vacate the premises on 26 October 2024. The parties had agreed to a final inspection on 27 October 2024. This was changed unilaterally by the tenant to 29 October 2024 and then 30 October 2024. b. On 30 October 2024 with the final inspection not having been completed, the male tenant informed the landlord by text that he had completed a considerable amount of painting and plastering work on the interior of the property and demanded payment. c. This came as a complete surprise to the landlord who had not authorised the tenant to undertake any such work. He had tentatively agreed to purchase unused paint from the tenant, but had not authorised any work to be done. He texted the tenant to stop doing any work on the property. d. Given the significant deterioration in the relationship between the parties and the tone of the tenant’s communications, the landlord was alarmed and went to the property that evening to complete the inspection. He had been informed that the female tenant had moved out of the property some time earlier and correctly understood from communications with the male tenant that he was not living there and was just tidying it up for the final inspection. e. The landlord went to the property around 5 pm on 30 October 2024 and was appalled at the state of the property: most of the tenant’s possessions had been removed, no cleaning had been done, there was rubbish scattered around the premises, “random” plaster repairs had been unprofessionally completed, one room had been “very roughly plastered and painted”. f. The landlord was concerned at the damage the tenant had done to the property in the unauthorised plastering and painting and, in the awareness that neither tenant was living at the property, he decided that he needed to change the locks to protect the property from any further intentional damage. g. The next morning 31 October 2024, he went to the property and found the tenant and a truck present. The locksmith had changed the locks that morning and was still there. He gave a key to the tenant so that they could remove any remaining items.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord had given notice of an inspection. The tenant does not need to be present for an inspection and does not have the ability to change the date or time of an inspection without the landlord’s consent. It follows that the landlord did not unlawfully enter the property when he entered the property for a pre-arranged inspection on 30 October 2024.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord accepts that he did not have the tenant’s consent to change the locks. The landlord intended to change the locks and to deprive the tenant of access to the property. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful act or, if he has, that it would be just to award the tenant exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant had given notice to end the tenancy on 26 October 2024. These events took place after that date when the landlord was allowing the tenant access to finish moving and cleaning. While there were subsequent discussions about the male tenant remaining in the property until the expiry of the landlord’s termination notice, no agreement had been reached to supersede the tenant’s notice of terminating the tenancy on 26 October 2024. b. The landlord had arranged a final inspection of the property after the end of the tenancy on the date he changed the locks when he reasonably believed the tenancy to have ended. The landlord was therefore entitled to change the locks as he was entitled to possession of the property. The tenant’s failure to grant vacant possession did not alter this fact. c. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances. Given the communications and attitudes of the tenants and the damage they had inflicted, it was not unreasonable to take steps to protect the property in circumstances that the landlord had reasonable grounds to believe was an emergency. d. He did not believe either of the tenants were living there and the tenant did not contradict this. The landlord provided access to the tenant’s the very next morning to remove their possessions. The tenant’s inconvenience appears to have been minor or non-existent. The tenant gave no evidence in this regard.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment
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) RTA.
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 gave verbal evidence at the hearing as follows: a. The landlord went to the male tenant’s place of work to get him to sign the bond form four or five times over a couple of weeks. b. On the morning of 31 October 2024 when the landlord returned to the property, he “charged at me like a bull”. Because she was scared, she called the police.
The landlord gave evidence, supported by evidence of texts, as follows: a. He went to the tenant’s place of work on five occasions over a month. b. On three of those occasions the purpose of his visit was to bring food for the tenants and their children. He provided evidence of their generosity to the tenant throughout the tenancy and the assistance they had provided to them when they were experiencing financial hardship. This included loaning them money to meet power bills and repairing a vehicle, as well as waiving rent arrears and reducing the rent for the final period of the tenancy. c. The landlord could not get any response from the tenant to texts or telephone calls and the place of work was nearby to the landlord. d. On two occasions the purpose of his visit was to get the tenant to sign the bond refund form which had already been signed by the female tenant and to whom the landlord had advanced funds against the bond. The landlord was trying to resolve all matters arising out of the tenancy and had already paid money to the female tenant to assist her in paying the bond on a new property, despite the tenant not yet having vacated the property and the rent being significantly in arrears, and on the express understanding that the male tenant would also sign the bond form. e. The tenant only expressed displeasure at the landlord’s visiting him at his place of work on the last occasion and the landlord did not do so again. f. The tenant went to the property on the morning of 31 October 2024 to meet up with the locksmith. As he arrived, the female tenant started videoing him and making accusations against him. The landlord admitted that he was annoyed and approached the tenant but did not get any closer than three to four meters. The tenant continued to video him throughout. g. He waited for the police to come for five to ten minutes but left to go to work “around the corner” and asked that the police be directed to him. h. The police did not attend or ever contact him.
The best evidence of the alleged harassment of the male tenant would have been his direct evidence. He did not attend the hearing and gave no evidence about any of the claims before the Tribunal.
The best evidence of the encounter at the property would have been the tenant’s video, but she did not provide a copy in evidence or offer to show it at the hearing.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has harassed the tenant for the following reasons: a. The landlord went to the male tenant’s place of work for legitimate reasons and desisted when the tenant complained. Two visits related to the tenancy. The other visits were not out of keeping with the landlord’s prior generous behaviour to the tenant during the tenancy. b. It was not unreasonable to visit the tenant at his place of work given the amicable relationship which existed between the parties during this five- year tenancy and because the tenant had not responded to communications. c. A landlord remonstrating with a tenant for videoing them and making accusations is not unreasonable and was not done for the purpose of harassing the tenant. d. The tenant’s recollection of the incident was vague and lacked any particulars. She lacked firsthand knowledge regarding the visits to the male tenant’s place of work. The tenant has failed to provide the best evidence of what happened on the morning of 31 October 2024. The Tribunal has preferred the evidence of the landlord which was clear, frank and often supported by text evidence. The landlord did not deny that the events took place, but provided details and a context that explained what occurred. e. The tenant did not deny that the police did not attend the incident. The fact the police were called is not, of itself, evidence of what the tenant alleges.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
As explained at the hearing, because the landlord has been wholly successful in their claims, the landlord’s name and details are suppressed.
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful in all their claims, their names and details are not to be suppressed. See section 95 RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067428 — Rent arrears at 5 Glenn Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067428 — Rent arrears at 5 Glenn Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501

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