What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120773 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 5120773?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120773?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11506728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120773 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 5120773?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120773?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11506728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8A Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120773 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 February 2025.
[The tenant’s representative/s] appeared for all the tenants. [The trustees] appeared in their capacity as trustees of the [The landlord/s].
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 3 February 2024 and ended on 3 February 2025. The premises are sited close to [University] in an area where many university students reside.
The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “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 more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises, has not provided and maintained such locks and other similar security devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure, has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and seek reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants further seek an award of exemplary damages for the breaches.
The factual background is not greatly in dispute.
Soon after the commencement of the tenancy, the premises were burgled. This burglary (“the first burglary”) occurred on 1 March 2024.
The tenants were not present at the premises when the first burglary occurred. Entry to the premises by the burglar was obtained through a ground floor window. The tenants say that there was no security latch on the window. They say that the security latch had been removed during the course of another burglary of the premises which occurred prior to their tenancy.
A range of personal items were taken during the course of the burglary including a passport, play station, monitors, clothes, iPad and bottles of cologne. This list does not include all of the items. The tenants were not insured.
The police were informed and the landlord replaced the security latch.
The police told the tenants that the area was known for burglaries. The tenants said that the failure by the landlord to advise the tenants of this burglary history amounted to a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
On 1 August 2024, one of the tenants and his girlfriend returned to the premises. As they approached the premises, they saw a car parked in the driveway that they had not previously seen. The tenant walked inside and found a woman who was not known to him. After a short discussion, during which it became clear that the intruder had no right to be there, the woman left in the car which was driven by a second unknown person.
The tenant checked the premises. Entry appeared to have been gained through the kitchen window. The window was fitted with a security latch. The latch had been unscrewed by the burglar and the window opened.(“the second burglary”).
On this occasion, audio speakers, a lap top, DJ deck and chargers were taken. The tenants accepted that the window may have been left slightly open by them which would have allowed the intruder access to the security latch. The window had one security latch.
On 6 November 2024 another burglary took place (“the third burglary”). One of the tenants returned to the premises at night and found the ranch slider door unlocked. The upper half of the laundry door consists of a glass window. The tenant said that the glass window appeared to have been jemmied open and the intruder was then able to put their hand through the now open window to open the door.
Internal bedroom doors had been locked. The door to one bedroom has been forced open. The room had been ransacked. A laptop which had been the replacement for an earlier stolen laptop was taken as well as protein powder, hats, iPhone charger and books.
The tenants explained that they became more anxious, frightened and stressed with each burglary. One tenant started to have nightmares and had been reduced to tears. The third burglary occurred during the exam period. I accept without reservation the explanation by the tenants of how they felt after this series of events.
The landlord evidence was that they have been the owners of the 5 units in this block of flats for 19 years. During that period and prior to the burglaries experienced by these tenants, they said that there had only been three burglaries in the block, of which two had been at this specific unit. They said that they had only had positive experiences with the many students who had been tenants during that period.
Importantly, the landlord said that at the start of this tenancy, each ground floor window had stays and a security latch. The landlord said that he had personally inspected them prior to the tenancy commencing. The landlord was unable to say how the security latch on the window at the first burglary had been removed. The landlord said it had to have been removed at some time between the commencement of this tenancy and the time of the burglary. The landlord said that if the window had been closed, the burglar would have found it difficult to gain entry. In reality, any burglar determined to gain entry will eventually be able to do so.
The landlord said that the repairs to any damage caused during the burglaries had been promptly carried out.
After the third burglary the tenants asked the landlord for improved security. The landlord said that they were prepared to pay $100.00 for a security camera. The tenants did not think that a single camera would make any difference. A camera was purchased, but had not been installed by the time the tenancy ended.
The tenants say that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair as required by s.45 RTA.
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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said in evidence that the window latches and security stays were all in good working order at the commencement of the tenancy on 3 February 2024. The tenants say that there was no security stay on the window used to gain entry at the first burglary. The following is of importance; If the tenants were aware that there was no window security stay prior to the burglary, there was an obligation on them to report this to the landlord. Section 45 RTA is not an absolute obligation on a landlord, except where a defect will be readily apparent. Once a defect is reported to a landlord, a landlord is entitled to reasonable period of time to carry out repairs. For the burglar to gain entry, it would seem that the window had been left open by the tenants.
In light of those circumstances, I do not consider that there has been a failure to maintain by the landlord.
Similarly, entry has been gained in the second and third burglary despite the presence of security latches on the windows and locks on the doors.
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is dismissed.
The tenants say the landlord has breached its obligations under s.46 RTA. That section provides that a landlord is to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. The landlord has provided windows with both latches and security stays. The doors and internal bedroom doors have locks. In the Tribunal’s view, the provision of those locks and security devices is sufficient to keep the premises “reasonably secure”. There is no absolute obligation on a landlord as to security, only that they provide locks and security devises to keep the premises reasonably secure. To provide locks and security devices to make the premises absolutely secure would be impossible. The tenants’ claim is dismissed.
The tenants’ claim that the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption from the landlord, any person claiming by, through or under the landlord or with any superior title to the landlord. The landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant.
I have reviewed the evidence provided by the parties. There is no doubt that the tenants enjoyment of these premises has been breached. What is similarly clear is that the breach of that quiet enjoyment has not been caused by or permitted by the landlord. The landlord has been the owner of these premises for a long time. The number of previous burglaries of this block of units is not unusual, particularly in a student accommodation area. I have no supporting evidence to suggest that these premises were any better or worse for the occurrence of burglaries prior to this tenancy commencing. The claim is accordingly dismissed.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that no doubt has been cast upon the evidence of the tenants by the Tribunal. They are a group of young men going about their lawful business and trying to get on in life. Their first experience in living away from home has been a traumatic one.
As the tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenants having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenants’ names and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be granted for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me is unusual. Neither party has been at fault, the fault having been caused by third parties. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the tenants’ interest outweighs the public’s interests.
Accordingly, an order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name.
The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name is ordered. No order is made for suppression of the address of the premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120773 — State of repair at 8A Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120773 — State of repair at 8A Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions