What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5162095 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 5162095?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162095?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162095?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11860707-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5162095 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 5162095?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162095?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162095?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11860707-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1B Apuka Street, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021, Upstairs Tenancy Tribunal Case 5162095 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Sandy Jean Connon and Rebecca Mary Bliss must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
[The tenant/s] moved into the downstairs flat at the tenancy on 17 December 2022 on a one-year fixed term. The upstairs section of the house is occupied by Ms Connon and Ms Bliss, the landlords. The premises are an older house, in a bush clad area. [The tenant/s] has pets, and the tenancy which has garden area was ideal for her. An additional bond amount was paid to cater for the pets. The lease was renewed on 17 February 2023 for another one-year fixed term. However, after the term had expired [The tenant/s] remained in the premises relying upon a right to renew the lease on an annual basis.
It is evident that [The tenant/s] intended to remain in the tenancy for an extended period. This led to her fencing the garden, to make it suitable for the pets, and to be redecorate most of the rooms downstairs. This work was done with the permission of Ms Connon and Ms Bliss, who paid for paint and materials. One room remains unfinished, having been stripped back to bare Gib and require repainting.
Initially the relationship between the parties was good. However, a series of events around Christmas 2023 and January 2024, leads to a breakdown of the relationship between the parties which has steadily worsened. There is now considerable ill feeling between the parties, a situation which was evident during the hearing.
It appears that due to the age and construction of the premises there are issues with the transmission of noise between the two separate living areas. Both parties refer to noise. There was increasingly acrimonious communication between the parties relating to these noise issues.
[The tenant/s] has bought applications for a number of issues relating to; a. alleged issues with maintenance; b. alleged healthy homes breaches; c. alleged breaches of quiet enjoyment and privacy; d. delays in the bond being lodged with tenancy services; e. allegations that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss charged more than two weeks rent in advance; f. alleged issues with record-keeping; g. seeking reimbursement for the costs of purchasing a clothes dryer; and h. retaliatory notice.
Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have brought a counterclaim for: a. breaches of their quiet enjoyment; b. to terminate the tenancy, or declare it periodic; and c. for the redecoration [The tenant/s] started but was unable to complete.
At the time of the application the tenancy was still on foot. While the tenancy was periodic the lease agreement unusually contained a right to renewal. Ms Connon and Ms Bliss sought orders to terminate with notice on the basis that the tenancy was periodic. [The tenant/s] sought to remain in the tenancy. However, at the hearing [The tenant/s] accepted that the relationship was untenable and advised that she had found a new tenancy. This development means that [The tenant/s]’s application for retaliatory notice, and Ms Connon and Ms Bliss’ application for termination, are moot. Maintenance
[The tenant/s] claims that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have breached their obligations to maintain the premises, under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 breaches alleged by [The tenant/s] relate to: a. issues with cockroaches and rats; and b. the condition of the path which allows access to the downstairs flat which becomes mossy, leafy, and wet during winter months.
[The tenant/s] seeks, in combination with a healthy homes issues discussed below, damages totalling $26,845. This is based on loss of amenity for the five rooms she says were affected. She estimates that the issues were present for 111 weeks and six days, and claims rent of $240 per week for the loss of amenity for those rooms. The cockroach issue
The cockroach issue relates to gaps at the margins of walls, ceilings, and some frame trim in which the insects able to hide. [The tenant/s] raised this issue with Ms Connon and Ms Bliss an email on 11 January 2023. It is unclear to me what steps were taken to address the issue at the earlier stage, and it does not appear that the issue was pursued until [The tenant/s] raised it again in an email on 29 January 2024. Ms Bliss responded that she would buy a bug bomb. The issue continued and a pest controller visited, with barrier paste being supplied.
An issue that arose during the hearing was whether the cockroaches were German/water cockroaches, an introduced species which can spread disease, or native wood cockroaches, which are considered harmless. I am unable to reconcile this difference in evidence, however, I do not consider that it is an important distinction. The presence of cockroaches, whether a harmful introduced species, or a harmless native species, is unsettling and if brought to a landlord’s notice I would expect steps would be taken to address the issue.
In this case I note that the issue was originally raised early in the tenancy, around the same time as the landlord was having pest control carried out for an ant issue. There was no further correspondence for a year, and when it was raised a second time Ms Bliss responded immediately, providing a bug bomb. [The tenant/s] did not use the bug bomb, as she had concerns about the toxicity of the pesticide and its effects on her and her pets. The problem continued. Ms Connon and Ms Bliss had a pest controller attend and barrier paste was provided. [The tenant/s] chose not to use the barrier paste due to toxicity concerns. The rat issue
The rat issue relates to rats entering the property during the winter months. This occurs commonly in older properties located in bush clad areas. The issue was raised at the outset of the tenancy. Traps were sourced and a tunnel trap was provided by Ms C. Ms Connon gave evidence that she is part of the Wellington pest control movement and has three traps set up around the property.
It appears that at one stage a rat may have entered the property and died in a ceiling cavity or wall space. There was a conflict in evidence between the parties as to a fly infestation which occurred one summer. [The tenant/s] says this was due to the dead rat, Ms Connon and Ms Bliss say it was due to dog poo deposited in the garden by [The tenant/s]’s dog.
Early on in the tenancy there was a hole in the pantry wall which allowed rats to enter the property. Once blocked by [The tenant/s] this appears to have resolved the issue of rats entering the pantry. Discussion
[The tenant/s] has focused on the gaps at the margins of the walls, ceilings, and frame trim. However, even had the landlord sealed these gaps immediately, it would not have prevented the cockroaches from entering the property. I find that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss took reasonable steps to address the cockroach and rat issues. While I acknowledge that the infestations were unsettling for [The tenant/s] I cannot find that there was a breach of the landlords’ obligations which justifies an award of damages, whether calculated on loss of amenity basis or as exemplary damages. The pathways
The tenancy is accessed via a concrete path with steps which passes through a section of native bush set on the side of a steep sunless gully. During winter a combination of the aspect of the path and falling leave means the path stays damp and allows for the growth of moss. The moss causes the path to become slippery. [The tenant/s] referred to issues with her and her visitors slipping. There was also an issue where a storm caused a tree to fall across the path. As I understand it the tree fell from a neighbouring property.
The correspondence shows that [The tenant/s] raised the tree issue almost immediately, however Ms Connon and Ms Bliss were away, so they arranged for a neighbour to move the tree and it was cut up and removed by Ms C(?) that weekend.
The path issue was raised by [The tenant/s] and the response was that the responsibility for sweeping the path fell to [The tenant/s] under the lease.
Viewing these issues I find that the tree issue was dealt with in as quickly as was possible in the circumstances. The path issue is trickier as a landlord is obliged to provide a safe way to access a tenancy. However, I note that: a. The correspondence shows that the path was periodically dealt with; b. The sweeping of the path was the responsibility of [The tenant/s]; c. Some amount of moss growth is inevitable due to the aspect, and nature of the path.
Subsequently I do not consider that there was a breach for which exemplary damages are appropriate. Healthy Homes Compliance
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes which allow draughts to arise.
As a private rental commencing between 28 August 2022 and 3 March 2025, the premises must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
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).
The 2023 lease agreements is an MBIE form with a HHS checklist. Ms Connon and Ms Bliss completed this themselves and an independent HHS audit was not completed at the time. A Healthy Home Compliance report was completed on 24 March 2025. The report shows that the tenancy was compliant or exempt but for ventilation due to windows being painted shut, which has been the case for a number of years, and non-compliance with the draught standard due to “one or more unnecessary gaps or holes in the walls, ceiling, windows floors resulting in noticeable draughts.” Ms Connon and Ms Bliss say that the issue relates to a broken catch on a kitchen window, and that the gaps referred to at the wall and ceiling junctions go to enclosed wall and ceiling spaces so are not leading to draughts. I do not accept this for two reasons: a. This statement contradicts the section of the report quoted above; and b. This type of home (an early 20 th century weatherboard clad Villa) is not constructed with a barrier seal beneath cavity cladding as is the modern design. Rather the cavity between weather boards and linings is open to the ground, and the waterproofing (using tarred building paper beneath the weatherboards) is formed by sheets pinned to wall studs. The gaps at ground level and between building paper sheets allows for draughts particularly in a windy location such as this. The wall cavities open into the ceiling cavity.
Some of the gaps referred to by [The tenant/s] are between battens and what appears to be pinex board ceiling panels. These will not be allowing draughts as the battens cover joins for aesthetic reasons. However, a number of the gaps shown, particularly those where ceiling panels have dropped over time, will be contributing to draughts, along with the gaps in the kitchen floors and the window issue. I understand that the ceiling and wall gaps have now been sealed with caulk. The HHS requirements are mandatory, and the tenancy was non- compliant. I find Sandy Jean Connon and Rebecca Mary Bliss committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that: a. It is likely the gaps have occurred gradually over time however, a landlord is required to provide a tenancy which is complaint, and the HHS provisions have been in force for the entirety of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy. The intention in question here is the intention to lease without ensuring compliance. b. The effect of the act was that [The tenant/s] had difficulties heating the tenancy, which was referred to in her correspondence with Ms Connon and Ms Bliss. Against this she also had the practice of leaving the door open during the day to allow access for her dog which does reduce some of the effect. However, the issue would remain at night. c. [The tenant/s] interest is to have a warm home. The draught issue affected this. d. The public interest is that tenants have dry warm healthy places to live. There is an overarching public health component to this as unhealthy living conditions lead to increased health costs. This issue is important enough that the HHS suite of legislation has been enacted in law and that breaches attract a higher level of exemplary damages.
Balancing all the factors I conclude that the breach was significant enough that an award is justified, but not at a high level as the gaps were relatively minor. It appears that this is the first such breach by Ms Connon and Ms Bliss. It is Tribunal practice to use a 33% ($2400) starting point for first “offences”. I then discount 50% due to the fact that the issues were at the lower level of seriousness. I find Ms Connon and Ms Bliss liable to pay $1200 in exemplary damages. Unlawful entry and Harassment
[The tenant/s] claims Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have entered the premises without consent or notice and have harassed her.
The circumstances which give rise to this claim are: a. It appears that early on in the tenancy inspections were occurring approximately once a year. However, as the relationship between the parties worsened in late 2024 and 2025 inspections were sought monthly. b. On 17 December 2024, in response to what she says was loud noise, [The tenant/s]banged on the ceiling with a broom. c. On or around 26 January 2025, Ms Connon and Ms Bliss carried out in inspection. I have not been provided with a copy of the inspection report however it appears that issues were raised around minor issues such as fly dirt marks on the ceiling and the cleanliness of the oven. d. On 14 February 2025, in response to the dog Ms Connon and Ms Bliss were caring, for barking during the night, [The tenant/s] banged on the ceiling again. e. On 20 February 2025, Ms Bliss emailed that she would come down to attend to issues raised in the Healthy Homes Compliance report. f. On 25 February 2025, following on from exchange of text messages relating to the cockroach barrier paste one of the landlords texted “have realised we are almost due for another property inspection so I’ll check everything then” [The tenant/s] questioned the need for another inspection and was advised that they can occur legally every 4 weeks with notice. The email also referred to checking for any damage caused by the ceiling banging. The following day [The tenant/s] emailed refusing consent for the proposed inspection. g. On 3 March 2025 Ms Connon and Ms Bliss emailed [The tenant/s] requiring photographic evidence to prove the ceiling had not been damaged by the banging, and of the progress of the painting of the front bedroom. This was provided. h. On 4 March 2025, Ms Connon and Ms Bliss issued a notice requiring [The tenant/s] to remedy the front bedroom. i. On 12 March 2025, there was a further incident of banging on the ceiling. j. On 18 March 2025, Ms Bliss emailed [The tenant/s] advising that, on the morning of 20 March, she intended to enter on the property to check the installation of the new oven and check completion of the remedy notices of 4 March. k. On 20 March 2025, at or around 9 am, Ms Bliss and Ms Connon entered the property. [The tenant/s] had cameras installed which show the landlords taking photos of the exterior of the downstairs flat and looking into the pantry.
Additionally, there were complaints about noise from furniture being moved, visitor’s children, a visiting dog barking, and television use. These appear to be sporadic rather than regular and are the by product of close living conditions in an older building. I do not find that the noise issues reach a level which is in breach. Unlawful entry
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 claim was made after the application was initially filed on 18 March 2025 and relates to Ms Connon and Ms Bliss’ entry and inspection on 20 March 2025. I note that 48 hours’ notice was given. A still taken from the video does show Ms Connon looking into the pantry, when the purpose of the entry was to inspect the oven. However, [The tenant/s] had asked for a hole in the pantry wall to be dealt with earlier, so I do not consider that it was unreasonable to have looked into the pantry. Given that notice was given, and that any deviations from the notice appear to have been minor, I cannot find any breach of section 48 from this incident.
S 48 refers to entry into premises. Provided the landlords does not enter the premises there is no breach therefore, the photos taken outside do not constitute unlawful entry. 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) 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.
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.
Considering the events described at paragraph [38] above I note that there was a marked change in behaviour of the landlords as the relationship between them and [The tenant/s] worsened. Of particular concern is the insistence on regular and intrusive inspections which occurred after [The tenant/s] had filed her application in the Tribunal. Given the inspections found nothing of any genuine concern and considering [The tenant/s]‘s repeated texts and emails opposing the entries inspections which outlined how distressing they were for her, I find that the repeated requests for inspections, the close watch over the exterior of the tenancy, including taking photos, and the repeated entries into the flat were harassment.
I acknowledge that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss live immediately above the tenancy, and therefore feel a closer emotional and personal connection to the tenancy than might otherwise occur. However, this does not justify actions of this nature. A decision to rent out part of one’s own home in return for money means a landlord must understand that the tenant’s rights to be undisturbed in their home are now the landlord’s legal responsibility. Given the background of a worsening relationship, the intention to terminate the lease, and a claim in the tribunal, these actions verge on retaliation. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Considering these factors, I determine that: a. The background circumstances referred to above indicate a legitimate inference that the events described at [30] were carried out in bad faith. From the correspondence, the sequence of events, and comments and behaviours during the hearing it appears to me that Ms Bliss’ and Ms Connon’s motivation was to vex [The tenant/s] b. The effect of these actions was to unsettle and cause distress to [The tenant/s]. That this distress was occurring was evidenced in her emails and texts, and the letters from her Counsellor and her Doctor. It was also apparent to me during the hearing that [The tenant/s] had found these events distressing, to the point where she abandoned her opposition to termination. c. When residential premises are leased the landlord exchanges the right to enter at will for the payment of rent. A tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment is a legal interest which has been recognised in law for centuries. While the landlord owns the building, the tenancy is the tenant’s home. In instances such as this where the landlord lives in the immediate vicinity, the landlord must take particular care not to interfere in the tenant’s rights to treat the tenancy as their home. Unfortunately, that has not occurred in this case. In this case [The tenant/s]’s interest and the public interest are one and the same.
I find that exemplary damages of $750 are appropriate here. As above I start with a 33% apportionment for a first “offence”, however the context in which this breach occurred leads me to add a weighting for the relative seriousness of the interference and the effect it had on [The tenant/s]. Bond lodgment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] paid her bond to Ms Connon and Ms Bliss on 17 December 2022. The bond was not lodged until 20 March 2023. Ms Connon admitted during the hearing that this had occurred due to a lack of understanding and a degree of disorganisation. However, the obligation on a landlord is strict. I find Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Considering those factors, I have determined that: a. The failure to lodge was not intentional, however, Ms Connon and Ms Bliss are running a business and must be expected to comply with the law. In advertence is no defence. I also note that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have been landlords for a number of years. b. The effect was that the bond was not in the MBIE Trust account where it is held independently. This mechanism is for the protection of both parties. c. [The tenant/s]’s interest was in having her bond held safely and independently. d. The public interest is protected by Landlords using the Bond centre to keep tenant’s money safe and to prevent misuse should issues arise.
In NZ International Property Development Limited T/As Sunshine Housing v Dunn and Kelly, DC, CIV-2012-009-000267, 16 May 2012, Judge Doherty found that naivety was not a defence, as a failure to lodge bond put a landlord (albeit temporarily) in a position of where the power imbalance against the tenant was exaggerated.
Taking into account that this is a first “offence” and the four-month period during which the bond was not lodged, I order that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss are to pay $500 in exemplary damages. Rent in advance
[The tenant/s] claims Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have required more than two weeks rent in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires.
A landlord must not require a tenant to pay more than two weeks in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have provided a rent summary which is headed “three weeks in advance”. During the hearing they said that the three weeks in advance included a deposit that was paid by WINZ, however this categorisation does not alter that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss’ own summary states that three weeks in advance was charged I find Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Considering those factors, I have determined that: a. Ms Connon and Ms Bliss advised that they were using the myrent software platform and it appears that there was some confusion relating to this. I cannot conclude that there was any ill-will, however, as has been stated above a landlord must be taken to understand the obligations. Naïveté or ignorance are no defence and they have been landlords for more than two decades. b. The effect of the overcharging of rent in advance was that [The tenant/s] was deprived of the use of that money for some two years. While it may be argued that the money was an advance from WINZ, nonetheless, Ms Connon and Ms Bliss had use of these funds which were unlawfully collected. c. Both the interests of a tenant and the public interest is served when landlords understand their obligations incorrectly apply the law. In this instance given the number of other similar technical breaches by Ms Connon and must be, I find exemplary damages are appropriate.
Taking into account that this is a first “offence”, I order that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss are to pay $500 in exemplary damages. Record keeping
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
At various stages during the tenancy Ms Bliss and Ms Connon contacted [The tenant/s] about rent arrears. [The tenant/s] accepts that due to the nature of her employment there were variations in the days on which she paid her rent. This background was further complicated as the rent was reduced on occasions to reimburse [The tenant/s] for money she had paid for paint and materials to redecorate the flat. The records show that [The tenant/s] did miss a rent payment on due 29 August 2023 and a short payment on 12 September 2024. However, she notified that there were issues before the payments were due, and the arrears were dealt with in quick order.
On 17 January 2024, Ms Bliss texted [The tenant/s] had missed payments on 24 October, 14 November, and 26 December 2023, and 2 January 2024. [The tenant/s]’s response was that payments were made, and Ms Bliss responded accepting the payments had been made but that they hadn’t shown up on her banking app. Email correspondence shows that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss sent a rent arrears letter on 29 January 2024, although I have not been provided with a copy of the letter. Following this there was a discussion about [The tenant/s] seeking a grant from WINZ for the arrears. I am unclear on what occurred with this as the partial rent arrears schedule I been provided with does not show any arrears owing around this date.
The situation was complicated as Ms Connon had agreed with [The tenant/s] that the rent would be reduced as reimbursement for the purchase of paint and materials for re-decorating. However, it appears that either the details were not well understood between the parties or that speedy was not aware of the arrangements. It also appears to have been some confusion due to the partial use of the myrent platform.
During the hearing Ms Connon conceded that the record keeping could do with improvement and explained that she and Ms Bliss were away for part of the period in question. However, the failure to keep good records led to an allegation of unpaid rent. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Considering those factors, I have determined that: a. there was no intention from Ms Connon and Ms Bliss relating to the records, rather it was a lack of organisation complicated by being unfamiliar with the software platform. b. The effect of the breach, as evidenced by the emails around the time was that [The tenant/s] was confused about whether her arrears have been paid. This clearly cause some level of distress, although the effects were somewhat overshadowed by other personal events that were occurring around this time. c. A tenant’s interest is to have clarity around the payment of rent. Non- payment of rent has potentially serious consequences for a tenant, which can include termination of the tenancy, and exemplary damages. Being advised that months’ worth of rent payments have been missed, and being issued with a rent arrears letter is exactly the issue which section 30 (1) is designed to avoid. When this Tribunal makes decisions about rent arrears it is reliant on the summaries of rent provided by landlords, and a failure to keep correct records could potentially lead to miscarriages of justice. It is in the public interest that landlords keep correct, up-to-date records.
I note that there was a fairly free flow of correspondence between the parties and that [The tenant/s] did not seem overly disturbed by the rent demand, however she was put to the trouble of checking records to address the incorrect demand. This was also a first “offence”. Taking these factors into account, I award $100 exemplary damages. The clothes drier and dog walker
[The tenant/s] has brought a claim for reimbursement of her costs to purchase a clothes dryer and for a dog walker.
She says she was forced to purchase the clothes dryer due to Ms Connon and Ms Bliss’ attitude towards her use of the clothesline and to drying clothes on racks inside the tenancy. Looking at the correspondence, it appears that this issue will appears to be based on a misunderstanding between the parties about items being left on the clothesline on a windy day. Moreover, there is no power available to the Tribunal to make such an award. This claim is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] has claimed the costs of the dog walker as she says that these costs were incurred as a response to the landlords’ issues with her dog barking during the day. The landlords say that they were not concerned by the barking, but neighbours made complaints. This is not a cost for which compensation can be awarded. While I acknowledge that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss consented to the dog being present and therefore must accept the barking which is an almost inevitable consequence of dog ownership, there is no legal mechanism which could make them liable for the costs of walking the dog. This claim is dismissed. Counterclaim,
Ms Connon and Ms Bliss have brought a counterclaim against [The tenant/s] for alleged breaches of their quiet enjoyment due to noise made by [The tenant/s]
Ms Connon and Ms Bliss’ claim is based on the tenant’s duty in s40(2)(c) RTA that the tenant shall not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants or other persons living in the neighbourhood. The complaints relate to noise from [The tenant/s] and her dog.
I note that: a. as with the noise complained about by [The tenant/s], the noise was sporadic, and when it occurred it was raised immediately with [The tenant/s], and usually she accepted the issue and apologised. b. As with the noise complained about by [The tenant/s] the incidents were sporadic, were a by-product of the close living arrangements, and occurred in the context of a deteriorating relationship between the parties. c. Ms Connon and Ms Bliss allowed [The tenant/s] to have a dog. As discussed above, barking is an inevitable consequence of dog ownership. The correspondence includes an excerpt from an email sent by Ms Connon that she could quiet the dog, however a neighbour had complained. It appears the barking issue was raised with [The tenant/s] in May 2024, and again in January 2025. It does not appear that there were any other complaints from neighbours referred to relating to the dog.
I cannot conclude that the events as described support a pattern of behaviour which constitutes harassment.
Moreover, a landlord’s quiet enjoyment is not protected by the RTA or the common law in the same way that a tenant’s is. S40(3A)(d) RTA makes a breach of 40(2)(c) unlawful only where the effect on quiet enjoyment is harassment of another tenant or a neighbour. For the purposes of the RTA a landlord is not a neighbour or a tenant.
While not mentioned on the claim form, Ms Connon and Ms Bliss’ documents include an application for immediate termination of the tenancy based on her failure to remedy the unfinished redecoration in the front bedroom, which is described as “damage”. He noticed a remedy was served on 4 March 2025.
I note that the redecoration of the flat was begun by [The tenant/s] with the consent of Ms Connon and Ms Bliss, who paid for the paint and some other materials. It appears that most of the rooms in the tenancy were completed to the satisfaction of Ms Connon and Ms Bliss. [The tenant/s] was unable to finish the front bedroom due to health issues.
The claim is in effect brought under s42B(4) and (6) which requires a tenant to undo any minor changes made to the tenancy. The “damage” in this instance is a room which has been stripped of wallpaper and needs to be repainted. The paint is available and [The tenant/s] has prepared the walls for painting. In effect [The tenant/s] has carried out redecoration work for Ms Connon and Ms Bliss. I have not been provided with photos of the condition of the room before the tenancy, however, references were made to older wallpaper. There is an element of betterment which I am unable to calculate in this instance, and it appears that Ms Connon and Ms Bliss’ position has been improved rather than worsened. I dismiss this claim.
For the sake of completeness, I note that at the close of the hearing I issued a direction recording the agreement that [The tenant/s] was moving out and had agreed to remove her dog proof fencing and other items. She has subsequently contacted the case manager advising that her bond has not been released and that she intended to make a further application to the Tribunal. Given that the termination occurred after the hearing, I have no application before me to allow jurisdiction, or evidence which would allow me to conclude on this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162095 — Rent arrears at 1B Apuka Street, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021, Upstairs

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162095 — Rent arrears at 1B Apuka Street, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021, Upstairs

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions