What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5121191 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 5121191?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,728.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $238.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121191?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11945557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5121191 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 5121191?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,728.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $238.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121191?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11945557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

43 Lockheed Street, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121191 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5121191 — net $3,716.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 January 2025	$3,728.57		Rent arrears to 12 January 2025
Water rates	$238.16		Water rates
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment		$250.00	Quiet enjoyment
Total award	$3,966.73	$250.00
Net award	$3,716.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,716.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Jiayin Hong $3,716.73 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The tenant applied for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment. Background
The tenancy commenced on 4 June 2023.
By Tribunal order dated 12 December 2024 1 the parties agreed for the tenancy to terminate on 12 January 2025. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and water rates and has provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing. The tenant acknowledged that the amounts sought were owed at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord applied for damage to the wooden flooring, wall holes, repair of the garage door, replacement light bulbs, and for pest control.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim in respect of the garage door.
In relation to the pest control claim the Tribunal order made on 12 December 2024 dismissed the claim. As another Adjudicator has dealt with the claim it is not possible for it to be reconsidered at this hearing. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for three replacement light bulbs. No invoice or receipt has been produced and therefore the cost of the light bulbs is not known. An order is not possible in those circumstances.
The landlord claimed for repair of the tile walls in the laundry. Before the tenancy the landlord had a handyman install a shelf in the laundry. The shelf consisted of large pieces of wood, presumably to hold a dryer. Those pieces of wood would have needed to be secured to the tiled wall with large bolts. During the tenancy the tenant asked if he could remove the shelf as he had a freestanding washer/dryer combo. The landlord agreed.
Section 42B(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that when there has been a minor change the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
The difficulty with this situation is that the shelf installed by the handyman was likely to have caused the damage that requires repair. The tenant confirmed that he had advised the landlord of the damage that the shelf had caused at the time when it was removed, but that damage was likely there from the beginning. 1
On the evidence I am not satisfied that this tenant caused this damage. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to the wooden floor caused by the tenant’s puppy scratching and urinating on it.
The tenant submitted that he used pads and fabric under the puppy’s play pen to catch the urine, which he changed daily. He said that when he moved out, he had the property cleaned professionally and that there was no smell of urine. The tenant said that there was no mention of damage during the exit inspection. He also said that he took the puppy with him to work so it was never left at home without him.
The landlord has produced photographs showing what appears to be dog urine pooled on a waterproof sheet and the puppy laying with gaps of the waterproof pads. The landlord produced witness statements saying that the puppy had urinated on the floor.
The problem with a claim such as this is that dog urine cannot be photographed. In relation to whether the dog caused scratches to the wooden flooring, I note that the premises are eleven years old and would have been occupied for nine years before this tenancy commenced.
While there is evidence that the dog urinated inside the premises, I do not have sufficient evidence to support the claim that the wooden flooring has been damaged as a result. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for exemplary damages due to the tenant subletting the premises. Section 44(2A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenant commits an unlawful act if he or she sublets or otherwise parts with possession of the premises in contravention of a provision or without the prior written consent of the landlord.
The tenant had three flatmates during the tenancy. He remained living in the premises and was the only tenant. I am not satisfied that this was a subletting situation. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant claims compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment.
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 $2,000.00. 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 claims that the landlord telephoned his employer on two occasions and contacted his flatmates to discuss issues with the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed that she had contacted the tenant’s employer because she was frustrated with the situation. She said that one of the tenant’s flatmates approached her while she was conducting a routine inspection. That flatmate asked how much rent she was charging as he had been told that the rent was $1,200.00 per week. The landlord confirmed that the rent at the time was $900.00 per week rather than $1,200.00. It was after this interaction that other former flatmates contacted the landlord to discuss issues from when they lived in the premises. The landlord had also asked some of the flatmates to provide evidence in support of her claim because she had not lived at the premises.
The landlord said that she asked the tenant’s employer to stop the tenant from giving her a bad name in the community. She said that her kindness to the tenant was being abused.
The tenant’s employer advised the landlord that this was a private matter. The landlord called the employer on at least two occasions, once in December 2024 and once in January 2025.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant’s flatmate who was living at the premises had approached her. The other flatmates that communicated with the landlord were former flatmates that no longer resided at the premises. I do not consider this to be harassment.
The landlord contacting the tenant’s employer was unnecessary and did amount to harassment. The tenant said that the landlord’s actions caused a lot of upset and impacted on his ability to sleep.
One of the phone calls from the landlord occurred during the tenancy with the second call after the tenancy had ended.
In the decision, G Sibilis v C Croft and R Byrt 2 the District Court Judge found that the Tribunal had made an error in awarding exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment after the tenancy ended. [49] In the present case, the appellant’s offending behaviour all occurred after the respondents had left the premises. While the Court notes that the Tribunal found the appellant’s conduct towards the respondents amounted to harassment, the Court does not consider that there were grounds to make an award of exemplary damages under s38(2) of the RTA where the respondents had already left the premises. 2 2023 NZDC 26882
Taking account of the above District Court decision I intend to award damages in respect of the first phone call only, which occurred during the tenancy. It is likely that the landlord contacted the tenant’s employer because he is a Real Estate Agent. While I accept that the landlord may have been frustrated by the situation her contact with the tenant’s employer could have had a significant impact on the tenant’s employment. While there was no evidence that it did impact his employment, I accept that the tenant was affected by the landlord’s phone call.
I consider that exemplary damages of $250.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Bond
When the tenancy ended the parties agreed for the bond of $3,560.00 to be paid to the landlord to go toward the rent arrears. The parties signed a bond release form, but the form had an error, and the Bond Centre did not pick up the error. The bond was incorrectly paid to the tenant.
If the bond had not been released and was still with the Bond Centre or had been paid to the landlord, the amount owed by the tenant would have been less. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name from this order as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5121191 — net $3,716.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 January 2025	$3,728.57		Rent arrears to 12 January 2025
Water rates	$238.16		Water rates
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment		$250.00	Quiet enjoyment
Total award	$3,966.73	$250.00
Net award	$3,716.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,716.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Jiayin Hong $3,716.73 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The tenant applied for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment. Background
The tenancy commenced on 4 June 2023.
By Tribunal order dated 12 December 2024 1 the parties agreed for the tenancy to terminate on 12 January 2025. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and water rates and has provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing. The tenant acknowledged that the amounts sought were owed at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord applied for damage to the wooden flooring, wall holes, repair of the garage door, replacement light bulbs, and for pest control.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim in respect of the garage door.
In relation to the pest control claim the Tribunal order made on 12 December 2024 dismissed the claim. As another Adjudicator has dealt with the claim it is not possible for it to be reconsidered at this hearing. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for three replacement light bulbs. No invoice or receipt has been produced and therefore the cost of the light bulbs is not known. An order is not possible in those circumstances.
The landlord claimed for repair of the tile walls in the laundry. Before the tenancy the landlord had a handyman install a shelf in the laundry. The shelf consisted of large pieces of wood, presumably to hold a dryer. Those pieces of wood would have needed to be secured to the tiled wall with large bolts. During the tenancy the tenant asked if he could remove the shelf as he had a freestanding washer/dryer combo. The landlord agreed.
Section 42B(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that when there has been a minor change the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
The difficulty with this situation is that the shelf installed by the handyman was likely to have caused the damage that requires repair. The tenant confirmed that he had advised the landlord of the damage that the shelf had caused at the time when it was removed, but that damage was likely there from the beginning. 1
On the evidence I am not satisfied that this tenant caused this damage. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to the wooden floor caused by the tenant’s puppy scratching and urinating on it.
The tenant submitted that he used pads and fabric under the puppy’s play pen to catch the urine, which he changed daily. He said that when he moved out, he had the property cleaned professionally and that there was no smell of urine. The tenant said that there was no mention of damage during the exit inspection. He also said that he took the puppy with him to work so it was never left at home without him.
The landlord has produced photographs showing what appears to be dog urine pooled on a waterproof sheet and the puppy laying with gaps of the waterproof pads. The landlord produced witness statements saying that the puppy had urinated on the floor.
The problem with a claim such as this is that dog urine cannot be photographed. In relation to whether the dog caused scratches to the wooden flooring, I note that the premises are eleven years old and would have been occupied for nine years before this tenancy commenced.
While there is evidence that the dog urinated inside the premises, I do not have sufficient evidence to support the claim that the wooden flooring has been damaged as a result. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for exemplary damages due to the tenant subletting the premises. Section 44(2A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenant commits an unlawful act if he or she sublets or otherwise parts with possession of the premises in contravention of a provision or without the prior written consent of the landlord.
The tenant had three flatmates during the tenancy. He remained living in the premises and was the only tenant. I am not satisfied that this was a subletting situation. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant claims compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment.
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 $2,000.00. 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 claims that the landlord telephoned his employer on two occasions and contacted his flatmates to discuss issues with the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed that she had contacted the tenant’s employer because she was frustrated with the situation. She said that one of the tenant’s flatmates approached her while she was conducting a routine inspection. That flatmate asked how much rent she was charging as he had been told that the rent was $1,200.00 per week. The landlord confirmed that the rent at the time was $900.00 per week rather than $1,200.00. It was after this interaction that other former flatmates contacted the landlord to discuss issues from when they lived in the premises. The landlord had also asked some of the flatmates to provide evidence in support of her claim because she had not lived at the premises.
The landlord said that she asked the tenant’s employer to stop the tenant from giving her a bad name in the community. She said that her kindness to the tenant was being abused.
The tenant’s employer advised the landlord that this was a private matter. The landlord called the employer on at least two occasions, once in December 2024 and once in January 2025.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant’s flatmate who was living at the premises had approached her. The other flatmates that communicated with the landlord were former flatmates that no longer resided at the premises. I do not consider this to be harassment.
The landlord contacting the tenant’s employer was unnecessary and did amount to harassment. The tenant said that the landlord’s actions caused a lot of upset and impacted on his ability to sleep.
One of the phone calls from the landlord occurred during the tenancy with the second call after the tenancy had ended.
In the decision, G Sibilis v C Croft and R Byrt 2 the District Court Judge found that the Tribunal had made an error in awarding exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment after the tenancy ended. [49] In the present case, the appellant’s offending behaviour all occurred after the respondents had left the premises. While the Court notes that the Tribunal found the appellant’s conduct towards the respondents amounted to harassment, the Court does not consider that there were grounds to make an award of exemplary damages under s38(2) of the RTA where the respondents had already left the premises. 2 2023 NZDC 26882
Taking account of the above District Court decision I intend to award damages in respect of the first phone call only, which occurred during the tenancy. It is likely that the landlord contacted the tenant’s employer because he is a Real Estate Agent. While I accept that the landlord may have been frustrated by the situation her contact with the tenant’s employer could have had a significant impact on the tenant’s employment. While there was no evidence that it did impact his employment, I accept that the tenant was affected by the landlord’s phone call.
I consider that exemplary damages of $250.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Bond
When the tenancy ended the parties agreed for the bond of $3,560.00 to be paid to the landlord to go toward the rent arrears. The parties signed a bond release form, but the form had an error, and the Bond Centre did not pick up the error. The bond was incorrectly paid to the tenant.
If the bond had not been released and was still with the Bond Centre or had been paid to the landlord, the amount owed by the tenant would have been less. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name from this order as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121191 — Rent arrears at 43 Lockheed Street, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121191 — Rent arrears at 43 Lockheed Street, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions