What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5096709?

The tribunal order states: Angela Edmonds must pay Rental HQ Limited As Agent For Miao Sun & Xin

How much money was awarded in case 5096709?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $152.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096709?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11443837-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5096709?

The tribunal order states: Angela Edmonds must pay Rental HQ Limited As Agent For Miao Sun & Xin

How much money was awarded in case 5096709?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $152.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096709?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11443837-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Ngaio Street, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5096709 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096709 — net $225.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$152.85	Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$46.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$225.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$225.85

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096709 — net $225.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$152.85	Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$46.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$225.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$225.85

Order

Angela Edmonds must pay Rental HQ Limited As Agent For Miao Sun & Xin Huang $225.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$152.85 Lawns and Garden work$46.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$225.85 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$225.85
The tenants application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the tenant and landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing, which was convened today in the North Shore District Courthouse. The landlord was represented by the property managers.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 21 December 2023, and was a fixed term tenancy to 20 May 2024, after which the tenancy rolled into a periodic tenancy.
The landlord is Miao Sun and Zin Huang by way of a property manager (agent), Rental HQ Limited.
Some issues arose around the premises which I will discuss further below.
The tenancy ended by way of notice from the landlord, on the ground of a family member moving into the premises. The final day of the tenancy was 28 November 2024.
Both parties have more recently filed claims in the Tribunal.

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed her claims are as follows: a. Rent reimbursement for loss of use of the bathroom. b. Failure to maintain gutters. c. Compensation for water leaks. d. Unlawful entry. e. Breach of quiet enjoyment. f. Retaliatory notice.
The landlord was represented by the property manager, who confirmed the landlords claims are: a. Water rates. b. Lawn work.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 fractionally 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.

ANALYSIS

The tenant presented six claims and the landlord two. I will consider those claims in turn.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Rent reimbursement because bathroom not useable

The tenant seeks a reimbursement of her rent of some $29,760 in relation to the bathroom and leaking gutters.
However, as it relates to the bathroom, the tenant states she could not use the shower. In her application, she states: loss of use of a bathroom, breech of healthy homes non compliance within 120 days of tenancy commencement. re ventilation, mould moisture ingress and drainage. the wood frame supporting the shower and bathtub are rotten and soft , there is mould going up the walls and ceiling, there is a big hole in the shower box frame, the ventilation is in a poor condition, the floor is bowed and a previous tenant fell through the floor due to poor maintaince, the shower head has been leaking since 21/12/23
The tenant further stated that she would need to bath at the gym because of the issues with her bathroom.
The tenant states that she has had issue with her bathroom since moving in, and that it was noted on the pre-let inspection report. The tenant states that the shower head would leak (the shower would drip), there was mould and rust inside the shower box, and mould on the bathroom and ceiling. The tenant says there was a large hole in the wall inside the shower box. The tenant says that the shower door would catch on the floor, and it would open on its own. The tenant said she initially used the shower, but felt unsafe with using it.
The tenant says that a maintenance worker in January 2024 advised her that the bathroom was unsafe to use, and that he would provide a report to the landlord. The tenant was not sure of his name. The tenant said that she heard nothing further, until an inspection in March 2024 when the condition was raised again with the landlord.
The tenant says that she stopped using the shower in January 2024, and that she provided notices and letters to the landlord on this.
The tenant confirms that the landlord came to the premises on 25 November to fix some issues in the bathroom, but not the shower, he laughed and said nothing could be done about it.
The property manager states that no maintenance person has raised issues with the bathroom. However the landlord states the tenant continues to use the shower, as shown with water on the floor.
The landlord notes the tenant claimed in her application that the last tenant fell through the floor, but that is not the case.
In terms of the tap, the landlord considers that if the tap is turned off properly, it does not drip.
The landlord considers that the property is old, but the tenant had three properties to choose from, and she chose this property, which is not consistent with her current complaints about the dwelling.
The landlord states a builder has assessed the premises and advised there are no structural issues, but it is accepted there is some chipboard broken down, but that is not inside the shower.
The landlord maintains that the tenant is using the bathroom given water and hair in the bathroom Analysis
The RTA requires that the landlord maintain the premises. The extent of any maintenance depends on the age and character of the premises, and how long it would likely to continue to be used for residential purposes (section 45(1)(b)).
The best evidence I have available are the photographs the parties have provided me. Those show the bathroom shower box to be dated and in need of paint, but I am not persuaded they show the shower to be unusable. I cannot see any defects in the shower box that would mean it would leak or be unsafe in any way.
I note here that the pre-tenancy inspection records the following: The shower is in good condition, but the surround and ceiling could do with a paint job. Okay condition
It is relevant to note that in that inspection report, the tenant has recorded extensive comments where she considered the premises were not up to standard, but has not recorded any disagreement with the landlords assessment of the shower box, in fact that area is marked with a tick from the tenant.
I note further that consideration of the photographs taken at the start of the tenancy show that the bathroom and shower were tidy, and in generally good condition. The photographs the tenant provided at the end of the tenancy show a marked deterioration in the shower and bathroom, which is likely to have arisen over the course of the tenancy. That deterioration would be consistent with the shower and bathroom being used. I do not accept the tenant’s evidence of not using the shower since January 2024.
I agree there is an area of chipboard that has broken down almost certainly from moisture, but that is not evidence the bathroom as a whole could not be used.
The evidence falls well short of a finding that the shower or bathroom was unusable. I have no difficulties in accepting that the facilities were dated, but the tenant has not proven that the shower or bathroom could not be reasonably used.
The tenant also claims that the bathroom was mouldy. That is supported in photographs, but that is not evidence of a defect with the bathroom. It is well recognised that mould develops in wet areas, and in the absence of evidence from a builder or some other qualified person to identify a structural defect, I consider the more likely situation is that the mould is the result of environmental moisture, such as from using the bathroom normally generating steam and moisture.
The tenant has not established a breach on the part of the landlord to the balance of probabilities, so this claim as dismissed. Claim 2 – Failure to maintain the gutters
The tenant says that the gutters were rusty and leaking, causing water to pool on the ground.
The landlord disputes that the gutters leak. The landlord states that the gutters do not leak, noting that the premises passed a Healthy Homes Assessment. Analysis
The tenant seeks compensation for leaking gutters.
Again as I have mentioned above, the landlord is required to maintain the premises, and if the gutters were leaking then that would be a maintenance issue. There is a secondary obligation of the landlord under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). The HHS includes obligations around drainage, including that:
Tenancy building to have efficient drainage system (1) The tenancy building must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall. (2) The drainage system must include appropriate gutters, downpipes, and drains for the removal of water from the roof.
I have considered the photographs presented by the tenant, and certainly those show the gutter and downpipes to be old with rust showing through the paint, but they do not show leaking or obvious holes.
The best evidence I have available in relation to the state of the gutters, is a healthy homes assessment report, completed by ‘Affordable Energy Solutions’ and dated 6 December 2023 – just prior to the tenancy commencing. That is an independent report.
The assessor records that the downpipes and gutters were present and sufficient. In my view, if the assessor considered they were holes or leaks in the gutters or downpipes, the assessor would have recorded that, because it would have meant that the HHS would not be complied with.
I note here that the HHS assessment identified areas where the HHS was not met, including with an absence of a ground moisture barrier and bathroom extractor fan (both were installed prior to the tenancy commencing). But the fact of the assessor identifying areas of compliance failure, provides a further measure of comfort that the report is sound and carefully presented, which means an absence of concerns being raised in relation to the gutters supports there is no breach.
The tenant has not presented sufficient evidence establishing any breach as it relates to the gutters. Claim 3 – Compensation for leaking shower
The tenant states that the shower would drip, and that has caused a water consumption that the tenant should not be liable for.
The landlord states that the taps have been assessed, and the issue is that the tenant is not turning off the taps properly.
The tenant disputes that the landlord has assessed the taps. Analysis
The tenant’s position is that there was a constant drip arising from the showerhead. The landlord disputes that to be the case, stating that if the taps were properly turned off, there was no drip.
I found this claim has not been established. I can see no reason to prefer the tenant statement that the showerhead will drip, over the landlord’s evidence that it was simply that the tap was not shut properly. This claim has not been established, it is dismissed. Claim 4 – Unlawful entry
The tenant said she returned home on 24 November 2024 and found the front door and garage door open. The tenant states she does not know who would have opened the doors, and questions if it was the landlord or property manager. However, the tenant states that one of the issues with a door had been fixed. The tenant states that there was no evidence of a burglary.
The landlord disputes that they entered the premises, and dispute that any issue with the front door that had been raised with them. At the hearing the landlord reviewed their electronic notes and could not find issues being raised with the landlord from that inspection, but the landlord recalls the tenant saying the tenant said the lock was sticky.
The tenant states the issue with the front door had been raised at a previous inspection on 16 September 2024. Analysis
The circumstances under which the landlord can enter the premises, are strictly defined in the RTA. A landlord can enter the premises at any time in an emergency, after giving the required statutory notice, or with the consent of the tenant at the time.
The tenant’s position is that the landlord entered the premises on 24 November 2024. The tenant did not see the landlord or some representative of the landlord on the premises, and nor has any witness evidence being provided as to who the person was who opened the doors.
On the landlord’s part, the landlord disputes that they had gone to the property.
Overall, I consider that the tenant has not proven that it was the landlord who entered the premises without consent. Again no witness evidence has been provided supporting that, and the tenants claimed association with the door issue being resolved is not sufficient to prove that it was the landlord to the balance of probabilities.
If the tenant was right and it was the landlord that went to the premises to fix the front door, that would not explain why the garage door was open.
I find this claim has not been established, so it is dismissed. Claim 5 – Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant says that after the landlord gave the termination notice, she was told they wanted her to move out earlier.
Further, the tenant says that the landlord and letting agent wanted the key handed over during the final day of the tenancy rather than midnight. The tenant found that to be harassing.
The landlord states they engaged with the tenant about the handover of the keys, and asked if the tenant wanted her to collect the keys. The tenant responded that she wanted more time to clean the premises, so the agent said to lock the keys in the house, which is what then happened.
In response the tenant said that she had asked for an extension of the tenancy end date, but that was declined. Analysis
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall 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.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
The need for a pattern of behaviour was also confirmed by the District Court in in Neems v Fraser [2025] NZDC 1222.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
From what the tenant has described at the hearing, I do not consider that to be harassment. The tenant has not described conduct that sounds as if the landlord would have intended to cause her upset.
But even if I were to consider a breach of quiet enjoyment more generally, such as for general damages, I am not persuaded that is established. There is nothing wrong with landlords and tenants discussing when the key will be handed over at the end of a tenancy, that is quite ordinary. But the tenant has not convinced me that the landlord was exerting any undue pressure to get her to leave the tenancy early.
This claim has not been established, this is dismissed. Claim 6 – Retaliatory notice
The tenant states that on 23 November 2024 she raised complaints about the premises, and then on the 24 th November was the issues with the doors being open. On 25 November 2024 the landlord issued the termination notice, which the tenant considers was a retaliatory notice.
The property manager states that the landlord’s father had a heart attack, and wanted him to live closer. It was determined that if the father lived in the premises, the landlords would be able to monitor him.
At the hearing the agent showed the Tribunal a discharge notice from the hospital dated 15 September 2024.
The property manager states the landlords father is now living in the premises with his wife, consistent with the notice that was given.
The tenant states that in October when the landlord attended the premises, he referred to his mother having a different medical condition. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that the tenancy terminated on notice from the landlord. On 26 September 2024, the landlord issued a 63 day termination notice which required the premises to be returned on 28 November 2024.
Based on the documentation on file, I can see the following occurred: a. On 18 September 2024 the landlord gave the tenant a 14-day notice to reinstall a smoke alarm. b. On 23 September 2024 the tenant emailed the landlord to confirm she had reinstalled the smoke alarm, but saying: I would like to bring to your attention the condition of the bathroom. The bathroom floor is bowed and the door to the bathroom doesn't close, I notified eden during the inspection on the 16/09/24 . She took photos. The window is still broken, and the towel rail is still being held together with cellotape. The shower box is still in a poor condition. When will these issues be remedied?. c. The property manager responded that same day, advising that the issue had been passed onto the landlord, and she would update the tenant when she heard back. d. On 25 September 2024, the landlord issued a 63-day termination notice, ending the tenancy on the grounds that the premises were to be used by a member of the owner’s family.
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 holds that 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 exercised 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.
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 the tenant asserting the right.
This claim is marginal, because there is unquestionably a correlation in time between the issues raised by the tenant regarding the bathroom, and the termination notice. However, on the other side of the ledger I accept that there were medical issues for the landlord’s father at that time, as demonstrated in the clinic letter shown to the Tribunal at the hearing, from about one week prior to the termination notice being issued. The property manager explained that the landlord wished to have his father live closer to the landlord, which would be understandable, and consistent with the medical record shown to me.
There is also the fact that the landlord’s father has moved into the property, which is of course completely consistent with the reason given in the notice, that a family member was to reside in the premises.
On balance, I conclude this claim has not been established. The evidence would be consistent with the landlord’s notice being given for genuine reasons, and therefore, the termination notice was not retaliatory, even if there was a coincidence in time with the tenants complaint.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Water rates

The landlord states that during the tenancy the tenant did not pay all of the water rates, the claim is $152.85.
The tenant’s position is that there was a water leak in the shower. Further the tenant said that she believed that WINZ was paying the water. Analysis
The RTA confirms that tenants are responsible for paying the cost of outgoings like water, which are exclusively used in the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
The landlord has provided the records of water charges and the payments made by the tenant.
The tenant has not disputed the amounts charged as such, but she disputes that she should be liable because the shower would drip. I find however, that the tenant has not proven there was a maintenance issue with the shower for the reasons I have explained above. Even if I were wrong with that, the tenant acknowledge that she used at the water in the premises, and the landlord will be entitled to be paid for that water.
The tenant has presented no evidence to show WINZ payments have not been accounted for if made.
The landlords claim for water usage has been established, and is ordered and full. Claim 2 – Lawn work
The landlord states that when the tenant moved out, the lawns were not mowed, the landlord seeks the lawn mowing costs to be paid, which is $46.00. The landlord states that the photographs of the lawns were taken on 29 November (the day after the tenancy ended).
The tenant states that the landlord should have notified her and given her the opportunity to remedy the lawns. Analysis
The RTA requires that tenants return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and that means that the lawns that comprise the tenancy must be tidy.
I am satisfied that the lawns were tidy when the tenancy started, but not when it was returned at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show that the grass was overgrown; it needed to be mowed. The landlord’s photograph was taken the day following the tenancy ending, which squarely demonstrates the condition the lawns were, when possession returned to the landlord.
The tenants defence to this claim is that she was not notified of the breach, and given an opportunity to have the lawns mowed. The problem for the tenant, is that once possession returns to the landlord, there is no obligation on the landlord to notify the tenant, and give her another opportunity to go back and remedy the breach. The tenants obligation was to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, the breach occurred at that stage, and once possession had returned, landlord did not need to allow the tenant to remedy that breach.
This claim is established and ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case tenant has applied for name suppression. Given the tenant has not been successful in her application or defence of the landlord’s claim, the tenant name suppression application is declined.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096709 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Ngaio Street, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096709 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Ngaio Street, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions