What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192171 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 5192171?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,485.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12405222-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192171 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 5192171?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,485.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12405222-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5192171 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5192171 — net $312.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at end of tenancy	$1,485.71	Rent arrears as at end of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$312.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$312.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [the landlord/s] $312.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears as at end of tenancy$1,485.71 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,512.71 Minus bond$1,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$312.71
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $1,200.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.

BACKGROUND

There is a long and troubling history in this case. The parties have been to the Tribunal already on two recent occasions.
The premises are located rurally, and the landlord lives about 50 metres or so from the tenancy premises, so, understandably, there was frequent contact.
This is a tenancy of long duration. At the hearing today, [The tenant/s] told me the tenancy has lasted some 14 years. The indications are that the parties had a good relationship, but more recently, that changed, and toward the end of the tenancy, the relationship was acrimonious.
In April 2024, the landlord issued a termination notice, on the basis of a family member wanting to move in. That was challenged by the tenant successfully, with the Tribunal setting that notice aside as invalid; that decision was dated 19 July 2024.
Not long after that, the tenant returned to the Tribunal, and was successful in obtaining work orders in relation to the kitchen, including obtaining an order of exemplary damages for failing to maintain the tenancy. That order is dated 4 September 2024.
The landlord appointed a property manager [the property management company]. That was sensible given the friction between the parties, and [the tenant/s] agrees that is the case.
A rent review was undertaken, and from that it was determined that the rent should increase from $400 per week to $500 per week, and that increase took effect in November 2024.
[The tenant/s] advised me that the increase was more than he could afford, so on 4 December 2024, he gave notice terminating his tenancy. The email notice says “[property manager], I will vacate the premises by 5 th January 2025”.
[The tenant/s] managed to move his belongings out by late December 2024, but spent a few days undertaking the cleaning.
Both parties have since filed applications with the Tribunal. The landlord has claimed rent arrears to 5 January 2025 of $1,485.71. The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for breaching his quiet enjoyment and for interfering with his water supply.
I convened a hearing today in [Event location suppressed]. In attendance were [the tenant/s] and a support person, and two property managers from [the property management company].

ANALYSIS

As above there are two applications, one from the landlord, the other the tenant. I will consider each in turn. Landlords claims Rent arrears
The landlord states that the tenancy ended on 5 January 25, and that the rent arrears owing as of that date is $1,485.71.
[The tenant/s] states that he moved out of the premises on 17 December 2024, and considers that the rent should not be ordered to 5 January 2025. Analysis
As I explained at the hearing today, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that a tenant give a landlord 28 days notice to end a tenancy. 1
But that is the minimum notice period, a tenant could give more, as occurred here. As I noted at the hearing, I interpret the termination notice as notice that the tenancy was to end on 5 January 2025, so that must mean [the tenant/s] is liable for rent until that termination date. It does not matter if [the tenant/s] had moved out before then.
For those reasons, I find that [the tenant/s] is liable for the rent until the tenancy termination date of 5 January 2025, so the landlord’s application is successful and ordered in full.
Because the landlord has been successful with this claim, the filing fee is to be paid by the tenant. Tenants claims Claim 1 – Loss of quite enjoyment
[The tenant/s] position is that the landlord has breached his quiet enjoyment in the premises.
At the hearing today, [the tenant/s] set out a range of matters he was dissatisfied with, such as the landlord trimming the hedge and leaving clippings on site, driving over his water sprinkler, and not properly maintaining the tenancy, such as the issue with the kitchen cabinetry considered earlier by the Tribunal and a dispute over vehicles at the 1 I note that the law changed on 30 January 2025, reducing the notice to 21 days, but of course that was after the termination in this case, so the notice [the tenant/s] needed to give was 28 days. premises. [The tenant/s] also referred to the deteriorating relationship with the landlord, which is plainly a source of significant disappointment for him.
In response, the Property Manager said that they took over management of the premises in August 2024. The Property Manager’s assessment is that there had been a breakdown in the relationship between the tenant and an owner, and that since they had taken over management of the tenancy, the premises were managed more consistently within professional expectations.
The Property Manager agreed that there was a rent review and rent increase, but advised that it was not undertaken in a desire to encourage [the tenant/s] to leave the premises.
[The tenant/s] notes that when he had moved out, he was issued with a trespass notice, which he considers was given to pass on the message that ‘this is my property’ and that ‘I have won’. [The tenant/s] considers the landlord has pressured him to get out. Analysis
[The tenant/s] seeks an order of exemplary damages for a breach of his quiet enjoyment.
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. 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 the appropriate definition. In that case, the Court 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.
To establish that [the tenant/s] has been ‘harassed’ there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at him which caused distress.
In this case, I do not consider that the matters described by [the tenant/s] would meet the definition of harassment. I can understand how it has been annoying, inconvenient or event distressing to [the tenant/s], but I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that the landlord was intending to cause distress or worry; this would be necessary for me to order exemplary damages.
Finding as I do that it has not been established that the landlord has set about to harass the tenant, the application for exemplary damages must be declined. Claim 2 – Loss of services
[The tenant/s] states that there is a bore supplying water to the landlord’s neighbouring property, and his premises had a feed from that bore. [The tenant/s] says that the landlord would turn the water off without notice. [The tenant/s] says that at times the water would be off for five hours in the day.
At the hearing, I summarised the law around services, noting that a landlord could lawfully turn off services like water, for maintenance or emergencies. I asked [the tenant/s] how I could be sure that the water was not turned off for maintenance. [The tenant/s] responded that when the services were turned off, that was for maintenance purposes.
The Property Manager states that she has not received any reports of concerns around the water being turned off, other than a request for a filter, but there was no obligation around that.
The Property Manager states that the Landlord had confirmed that there were issues with pipes being broken, so maintenance was needed to the water supply at times. Analysis
Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, and that includes at subsection 2 that: The landlord shall not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out.
In this case, the water supplied to the Tenancy was from a bore on the landlord’s premises. That bore not only supplied water to the Tenancy dwelling, but also the landlord’s property and farm. The evidence is that from time to time the water would need to be turned off while maintenance was being undertaken to that supply, but that would fall within the permissible times water could be turned off under section 45 above. That makes sense, because the landlord cannot of course, guarantee that services like water supplies would never be turned off, there must naturally be some occasions when the water needs to be turned off such as to mend a leaking pipe, etc.
At the hearing I asked [the tenant/s] when the water would be turned off, and the tenant accepted that it would be when maintenance was being undertaken, which is not unlawful. While I can understand that it would at times be inconvenient, I cannot see that the landlord has breached any legal obligation if water was turned off for maintenance purposes. Ideally, a landlord would give notice first, but there is no obligation in the RTA for that to occur. This claim has not been established, so must be declined.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord applies for name suppression, and as the landlord has been wholly successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.
I also order name suppression to apply for the tenant. The tenant has previously been granted named suppression in the orders that are referred to above, so that named suppression must continue.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5192171 — net $312.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at end of tenancy	$1,485.71	Rent arrears as at end of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$312.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$312.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [the landlord/s] $312.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears as at end of tenancy$1,485.71 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,512.71 Minus bond$1,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$312.71
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $1,200.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.

BACKGROUND

There is a long and troubling history in this case. The parties have been to the Tribunal already on two recent occasions.
The premises are located rurally, and the landlord lives about 50 metres or so from the tenancy premises, so, understandably, there was frequent contact.
This is a tenancy of long duration. At the hearing today, [The tenant/s] told me the tenancy has lasted some 14 years. The indications are that the parties had a good relationship, but more recently, that changed, and toward the end of the tenancy, the relationship was acrimonious.
In April 2024, the landlord issued a termination notice, on the basis of a family member wanting to move in. That was challenged by the tenant successfully, with the Tribunal setting that notice aside as invalid; that decision was dated 19 July 2024.
Not long after that, the tenant returned to the Tribunal, and was successful in obtaining work orders in relation to the kitchen, including obtaining an order of exemplary damages for failing to maintain the tenancy. That order is dated 4 September 2024.
The landlord appointed a property manager [the property management company]. That was sensible given the friction between the parties, and [the tenant/s] agrees that is the case.
A rent review was undertaken, and from that it was determined that the rent should increase from $400 per week to $500 per week, and that increase took effect in November 2024.
[The tenant/s] advised me that the increase was more than he could afford, so on 4 December 2024, he gave notice terminating his tenancy. The email notice says “[property manager], I will vacate the premises by 5 th January 2025”.
[The tenant/s] managed to move his belongings out by late December 2024, but spent a few days undertaking the cleaning.
Both parties have since filed applications with the Tribunal. The landlord has claimed rent arrears to 5 January 2025 of $1,485.71. The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for breaching his quiet enjoyment and for interfering with his water supply.
I convened a hearing today in [Event location suppressed]. In attendance were [the tenant/s] and a support person, and two property managers from [the property management company].

ANALYSIS

As above there are two applications, one from the landlord, the other the tenant. I will consider each in turn. Landlords claims Rent arrears
The landlord states that the tenancy ended on 5 January 25, and that the rent arrears owing as of that date is $1,485.71.
[The tenant/s] states that he moved out of the premises on 17 December 2024, and considers that the rent should not be ordered to 5 January 2025. Analysis
As I explained at the hearing today, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that a tenant give a landlord 28 days notice to end a tenancy. 1
But that is the minimum notice period, a tenant could give more, as occurred here. As I noted at the hearing, I interpret the termination notice as notice that the tenancy was to end on 5 January 2025, so that must mean [the tenant/s] is liable for rent until that termination date. It does not matter if [the tenant/s] had moved out before then.
For those reasons, I find that [the tenant/s] is liable for the rent until the tenancy termination date of 5 January 2025, so the landlord’s application is successful and ordered in full.
Because the landlord has been successful with this claim, the filing fee is to be paid by the tenant. Tenants claims Claim 1 – Loss of quite enjoyment
[The tenant/s] position is that the landlord has breached his quiet enjoyment in the premises.
At the hearing today, [the tenant/s] set out a range of matters he was dissatisfied with, such as the landlord trimming the hedge and leaving clippings on site, driving over his water sprinkler, and not properly maintaining the tenancy, such as the issue with the kitchen cabinetry considered earlier by the Tribunal and a dispute over vehicles at the 1 I note that the law changed on 30 January 2025, reducing the notice to 21 days, but of course that was after the termination in this case, so the notice [the tenant/s] needed to give was 28 days. premises. [The tenant/s] also referred to the deteriorating relationship with the landlord, which is plainly a source of significant disappointment for him.
In response, the Property Manager said that they took over management of the premises in August 2024. The Property Manager’s assessment is that there had been a breakdown in the relationship between the tenant and an owner, and that since they had taken over management of the tenancy, the premises were managed more consistently within professional expectations.
The Property Manager agreed that there was a rent review and rent increase, but advised that it was not undertaken in a desire to encourage [the tenant/s] to leave the premises.
[The tenant/s] notes that when he had moved out, he was issued with a trespass notice, which he considers was given to pass on the message that ‘this is my property’ and that ‘I have won’. [The tenant/s] considers the landlord has pressured him to get out. Analysis
[The tenant/s] seeks an order of exemplary damages for a breach of his quiet enjoyment.
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. 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 the appropriate definition. In that case, the Court 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.
To establish that [the tenant/s] has been ‘harassed’ there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at him which caused distress.
In this case, I do not consider that the matters described by [the tenant/s] would meet the definition of harassment. I can understand how it has been annoying, inconvenient or event distressing to [the tenant/s], but I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that the landlord was intending to cause distress or worry; this would be necessary for me to order exemplary damages.
Finding as I do that it has not been established that the landlord has set about to harass the tenant, the application for exemplary damages must be declined. Claim 2 – Loss of services
[The tenant/s] states that there is a bore supplying water to the landlord’s neighbouring property, and his premises had a feed from that bore. [The tenant/s] says that the landlord would turn the water off without notice. [The tenant/s] says that at times the water would be off for five hours in the day.
At the hearing, I summarised the law around services, noting that a landlord could lawfully turn off services like water, for maintenance or emergencies. I asked [the tenant/s] how I could be sure that the water was not turned off for maintenance. [The tenant/s] responded that when the services were turned off, that was for maintenance purposes.
The Property Manager states that she has not received any reports of concerns around the water being turned off, other than a request for a filter, but there was no obligation around that.
The Property Manager states that the Landlord had confirmed that there were issues with pipes being broken, so maintenance was needed to the water supply at times. Analysis
Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, and that includes at subsection 2 that: The landlord shall not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out.
In this case, the water supplied to the Tenancy was from a bore on the landlord’s premises. That bore not only supplied water to the Tenancy dwelling, but also the landlord’s property and farm. The evidence is that from time to time the water would need to be turned off while maintenance was being undertaken to that supply, but that would fall within the permissible times water could be turned off under section 45 above. That makes sense, because the landlord cannot of course, guarantee that services like water supplies would never be turned off, there must naturally be some occasions when the water needs to be turned off such as to mend a leaking pipe, etc.
At the hearing I asked [the tenant/s] when the water would be turned off, and the tenant accepted that it would be when maintenance was being undertaken, which is not unlawful. While I can understand that it would at times be inconvenient, I cannot see that the landlord has breached any legal obligation if water was turned off for maintenance purposes. Ideally, a landlord would give notice first, but there is no obligation in the RTA for that to occur. This claim has not been established, so must be declined.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord applies for name suppression, and as the landlord has been wholly successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.
I also order name suppression to apply for the tenant. The tenant has previously been granted named suppression in the orders that are referred to above, so that named suppression must continue.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192171 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192171 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions