What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123449 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s names

How much money was awarded in case 5123449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123449?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11640272-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123449 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s names

How much money was awarded in case 5123449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123449?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11640272-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5123449 — Property damage

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,710.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The Tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Although both husband and wife were landlords I refer to them collectively as “the landlord”.
The tenancy began on 2 March 2023 and ended on 28 December 2024. During that time the Tenant lived in a granny flat that was separate from the Landlord’s home. On 28 December 2024 the Tenant vacated the granny flat and moved into a room with ensuite in the Landlord’s home as a boarder.
The Tenant has applied for the following orders: a. Refund of her bond of $1,710.00; b. Compensation for the following breaches by the Landlord: i. Harassment; ii. Entering to inspect without notice; iii. Failing to notify her that the property had been placed on the market for sale; and iv. Giving notice without cause.
The Landlord has applied for compensation for repair of the following damage: a. A hairline crack in bathroom sink; and b. A broken tile in the bathroom.
A preliminary hearing was held on 20 February 2025 to determine the issue of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that: a. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claims that relate to the period that the tenant was resident in the granny flat; b. The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear claims that relate to the period where the tenant lived in the landlord’s home as a boarder. Background
The tenancy began as a friendly arrangement. It appears that the tenant was paying $570 per week, less than the market rent of $650 per week. The parties initially got on well and would chat as neighbours and share baking from time to time.
Difficulties arose when the landlord decided to end their marriage. They placed the house on the market but did not get an acceptable offer and so they agreed that the wife would buy out the husband. It was at this stage that the tenant moved out of the granny flat and into the house as a boarder.
Once the parties were living together in the same house the relationship appears to have quickly deteriorated. The parties frequently argued and the tenant alleges that the wife has harassed her. Onus and evidence
I begin by noting that 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 they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all of the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. The Tenant’s claims
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them. The tenant made various allegations including an allegation of assault. I understand that the tenant has made a complaint to the New Zealand Police regarding the landlord’s behaviour.
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.
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.
The tenant’s claims of harassment by the landlord’s wife related to the time period where the tenant was a boarder and not a tenant. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine claims during this time period as previously determined.
The tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed. Failure to advise property on the market for sale
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 47 a landlord must give written notice to the tenants immediately if the premises are placed on the market.
The tenant said that the landlord’s visit with a real estate agent in June showed that they intended to place the property on the market for sale, but that she was not told until 16 July 2024.
The landlord said that they made enquiries about marketing the property but during June and July but did not place the property on the market for sale until 16 July 2024. They said that they told the tenant the same day. The landlord provided copies of both the listing agreement and the advice to the tenant.
I find that the landlord did give written notice to the tenant immediately when the premises were placed on the market.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Conducting an inspection without notice
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that in June 2024 the landlord arrived with a real estate agent to look at the property. She said that she did not have notice of the visit.
The landlord said that they thought they had given notice, but in any event they knocked on the door when they arrived and asked the tenant if they could have a look around the property and she agreed.
The tenant confirmed that she had agreed and had welcomed the landlord and agent inside.
I do not need to determine whether or not the landlord gave notice as they entered the tenancy with the tenant’s consent.
This claim is not proved and is dismissed. Failure to give notice
The tenant says that the landlord breached her obligations as she gave notice to terminate the tenancy without having cause to do so.
Under Section 60AA RTA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
The tenant said that she lost her job earlier in the year and, as the property was on the market for sale, had started looking at cheaper accommodation. She said that in the meantime she made all rent payments and worked as an uber driver so that she was able to do so.
However the tenant said that when the wife had purchased the property in November 2024 she advised her that she would have to put the rent for the granny flat up to the market rate of $650.00 when the 12 month period ran out in March 2025. The wife offered the tenant the opportunity to move out of the granny flat and into the main house as a boarder, paying $350.00 per week.
The tenant said that she would not be able to afford the new rent, and had actively been looking for cheaper accommodation anyway, so she agreed. The tenant said that she felt under some pressure as she realised that the rent for the granny flat would be raised out of her price range in only a few months’ time.
The landlord said that the rent had been under market rent for some time and that they would have to raise the rent when the 12 month period came around, and as the tenant was in financial difficulty she offered the boarding arrangement as a solution.
A copy of the messages between the parties was produced to the Tribunal. These include negotiations by the tenant as to the terms of the boarding arrangement including the use of a separate kitchenette and continuing visits by family and friends.
Having reviewed the evidence I do not consider that the landlord gave notice to the tenant. Neither party gave notice. They simply decided that it would benefit both of them to end the tenancy and for the tenant to move in as a boarder.
This claim is not proved and is dismissed. The landlord’s claims

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant caused a crack in the bathroom hand basin and cracked a tile on the bathroom floor. The landlord provided a photo of the hand basin at the end of the tenancy showing a very fine hairline crack in the handbasin, and a crack at the edge of one tile.
The landlord raised a variety of other issues in their application but at the hearing advised that they only sought compensation in respect of the bathroom hand basin and tile.
The landlord provided a quote for repairs as follows: a. To replace cracked round hand basin in bathroom and replace tap in kitchen - $1,350 plus GST b. To remove and replace tile - $1100 plus GST.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The tenant said that the crack in the handbasin appeared gradually during the tenancy. She denied causing the crack.
The tenant said that the cracked tile was there at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said that she told the landlord about the crack forming in the handbasin and the cracked tile but they did nothing about either issue.
The landlord did not produce photos showing the condition of the handbasin and tile at the start of the tenancy. Following questioning from me they produced a photo from the start of the tenancy showing that there was no crack in the bathroom handbasin, but no photo of the tile area.
I find that the landlord has not proved that the crack in the tile occurred during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
I find that the landlord has proved that the crack in the bathroom handbasin occurred during the tenancy but has not proved that the crack is more than fair wear and tear. The crack is a small hairline crack that follows the curve of the basin. It is not the sort of crack that results from the tenant being careless and, for example, dropping something heavy in the sink. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant is entitled to a refund of her bond. Filing fees and name suppression
Neither party has been substantially successful in their claims. I have therefore not made any orders reimbursing the filing fees paid.
The tenant has made allegations against the landlord that cannot be determined by this Tribunal and so no findings have been made in respect of those allegations. I have exercised my discretion to suppress the parties’ names and identifying details pursuant to section 95A(1) because of these circumstances.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123449 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123449 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions