How much money was awarded in case 5197191?

Compensation: beach of right to quie…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $680.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5197191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5197191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11938661-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5197191?

Compensation: beach of right to quie…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $680.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5197191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5197191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11938661-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5197191 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5197191 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant has had claims upheld and the Tribunal orders suppression of the

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5197191 — net $1,457.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: fail to repair deck	$680.00	fail to repair deck
Exemplary damages: breach of maintenance/ repair obligations	$500.00	breach of maintenance/ repair obligations
Compensation: beach of right to quiet enjoyment	$250.00	beach of right to quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,457.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,457.00

The tenant has had claims upheld and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Robert's Property Management Limited As Agent For Sally Mckenzie and Sally McKenzie must pay [The tenant/s] $1,457.00 immediately calculated in the table below.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. Background

These proceedings began with an application (5137849) filed by the landlord on 17 January 2025, for an order terminating the tenancy and payment of rent arrears.

That application was allocated a hearing by teleconference. The hearing took place on 7 March 2025 but was adjourned because: “The landlord started driving during the hearing so I ended the call with him. The tenant kept interrupting so I ended the hearing.”

The tenancy had ended before the March hearing. After the March hearing the tenant repaid the rent arrears, so the landlord’s application was withdrawn.

The tenant brought this cross application seeking: a. return of his bond; b. compensation and/ or exemplary damages for i.breach of privacy; ii.unlawful entry; iii.breach of right to quiet enjoyment; iv.breach of maintenance/ repair obligations; v.threats to evict/ unfair treatment/ mismanagement. Bond

The tenant paid a bond of $2,400.00 which remains held at the Bond Centre.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.

The landlord confirms that it has no claim against the bond. The landlord’s explanation that it had wrongly entered the tenant’s e-mail address into the system is not a reasonable excuse for the landlord not having already ensured the tenant’s bond was refunded to him.

The bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Breach of Privacy

The tenant says that the owner wrongly disclosed personal information about his financial situation to his partners’ mother and a neighbour, which caused reputational damage to him and affected his ability to recover money owed to him.

The owner’s evidence is that she was aware of the tenant having suffered an accident and the tenant was not paying rent or responding to communications. She says she was genuinely concerned for the tenant’s welfare, which prompted her to contact the neighbour and also the mother of the tenant’s partner, who had been identified as a contact person in the tenant’s application for the tenancy, to check the tenant was OK. The owner denies having ever disclosed the tenant’s name or business outside those welfare checks.

I accept the owner’s evidence about the motivation for her actions. The evidence does not prove the tenant’s claims of being gossiped about by the owner. That being so, I do not consider that the landlord’s actions constitute a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment or harassment under the RTA.

There may be a more general obligation on the holders of personal information as to how that information is disclosed but that is likely to involve issues under the Privacy Act, which is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The tenant asserts that “Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act explicitly states that a tenant's personal financial information must remain confidential unless the tenant has provided clear and specific consent for its disclosure. Actually, section 45(1)(a) RTA deals with a landlord’s obligation to provide premises in a reasonably clean condition. I am not aware of a provision in the RTA equivalent to the provision referred to by the tenant.

I have ordered suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details so the landlord must not make any future disclosures about the tenancy that identify the tenant. Unlawful entry

[The tenant/s] claims the property manager entered the premises twice without consent or notice.

The first occasion was 30 November 2024. The tenant’s submission says that on that date: ‘I notice a man peeking through my lounge doors after a shower. I ask who he is, and after several attempts to get a response, he refuses to identify himself. I eventually ask him to leave, but he does not comply immediately. After threatening to call the police, he leaves. 8:59 am: The man enters a company car, and I catch the company name: Roberts Property Management.”

The property manager says: “I visited the property to hand deliver in person our welcome to Roberts property management letter that had previously been e- mail. At no stage did I ever enter the house. I knocked at the back door and received no answer, having noticed the front sliding door open on the front deck I then went round the front and knocked on the glass, a man entered from a back room and I asked him if he was [The tenant/s], his reply was who the hell was I, I again asked if he was [The tenant/s] or was [The tenant/s] available, he told me to go away. I asked if he could tell me when [The tenant/s] may be available on site, he demanded to know who I was. At this stage I chose not to identify myself as I didn't know who I was dealing with, sub tenant or friend. He demanded I exit the property, at this point he threatened me with calling the police and trespassing me from the property if I didn't leave the property. I did leave and he witness me entering my company vehicle parked outside the house.”

Two provisions are relevant here: Section 38 RTA provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Section 48 RTA provides that 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. Doing so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

Section 48(7) provides that “In this section premises does not include land or facilities.”

It is not alleged that the property manager entered the tenant’s dwelling on this occasion. I not find a breach of s.48 proved.

Having read the parties’ statements and heard from them, I do find that the property manager’s visit to the premises, while it may have been innocently intended, was conducted in a way that unduly intruded on the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. The tenant found a stranger on his property, who refused to identify himself after asking about the tenant, persisted with his enquiries after being asked to leave and did not leave until threatened with the police.

I find that a modest award of compensation would be appropriate to recognise that intrusion. In assessing what sum would be fair, I take into account that: a. at the time the property manager had properly been appointed to manage the tenancy; b. soon after the event the tenant was made aware who the visitor had been, so was not left wondering who had been looking for him; but c. the property beginning a relationship with tenant in that way, that fundamentally undermined trust, had a significant ongoing effect.

The tenant claims that the property manager entered the premises on another occasion because when he returned home he was told by the cleaner that a man had come into the premises, interrupting her work and startling her, asking for the tenant’s whereabouts and left there a letter addressed, “To the Homeowner”. The tenant says the cleaner described that person’s car as the property manager’s.

The tenant says that because he is not the homeowner he did not open the letter.

The property manager denies being the person involved or having ever entered the dwelling before the end of the tenancy.

In assessing the evidence I must give more weight to the direct evidence of the property manager, given in person, under promise, than hearsay evidence about what the cleaner observed. Because the landlord’s response to the claims was only provided on the morning of the hearing, I asked the tenant if he wanted an adjournment to be able call the cleaner as a witness. The tenant chose not to.

I do not find that claim proved. Maintenance/ Repair obligations

Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The evidence shows that on 26 November 2024 the tenant brought to the owner’s attention that a timber decking board on the front deck had broken. The photographs provided show that the board is at the top of broad stairs that lead to the house entrance and that if somebody, especially a child, had stood on the broken board their foot could have gone through, creating a risk of significant injury.

The landlord acknowledges being aware of the risk and that the damage required repair. The owner had approved the repair. The property manager says however that because of the difficult relationship with the tenant, he judged it too risky to send a tradesperson to do the repair, so the deck remained as it was until the tenancy ended on 5 March 2025.

The tenant says that he has children who stay and has friends with children who visit so there was always a concern they would hurt themselves on the broken deck, requiring that they be constantly supervised.

I find that the landlord breached its obligations under s.45(1)(b) by not repairing the deck.

I struggle to accept the landlord’s explanation for the work not having been done. A property inspection was competed around the same time without incident and nothing in the evidence supports a concern that a tradesperson going to the premises to do repair work that needed doing and that the tenant wanted done, would be at risk in any way.

The tenant should be compensated for the effect of that breach of his use and enjoyment of the premises, which I assess at 1 week’s rent.

By breaching its obligations under s.45(1)(a) the landlord has 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.

The breach was intentional.

As noted, the landlord says the intent was not to avoid doing the work – the owner had approved it, but to avoid putting their tradesperson at risk, As also noted, the evidence does not support that concern.

The effect on the tenant’s use of the premises has been taken into account in the compensation awarded. What that compensation does not recognise is the tenant’s complaint that the landlord was quick to assert its legal rights when the tenant was in breach (seeking termination even though the tenant had offered arrangements to pay the arrears and did in fact pay them) but was much more “relaxed” when it came to meeting its own obligations.

There is a public interest in parties meeting what are clear legal requirements.

I also take into account that the breach was relatively minor in nature and that in all other respects the premises appear to have been provided well maintained.

Weighing those considerations, I do think that a modest award of damages would be just in addition to the compensation awarded. Threats to evict/ Unfair treatment

There is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages for unfair treatment or mismanagement per se, only if the conduct complained of comprises a breach of the RTA.

The tenant says that he was threatened with eviction and the landlord unfairly brought a claim for termination for rent arrears, even though the tenant had offered arrangements to pay the arrears and did in fact later repay them.

Here, when the landlord brought the application for termination, rent was more than 21 days in arrears. That is grounds for termination of the tenancy (see s.55(1)(a)) and the landlord was entitled to bring that application even if, after hearing the evidence the Tribunal might have chosen not to terminate the tenancy, for instance under s.55(2).

If a party is exercising legal rights given by the RTA, they cannot be said to be breaching their obligations or acting unlawfully by doing so.

It is not therefore a situation covered by s.60AA, which makes it unlawful for a landlord to, “...give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.”

I have taken account the importance of the landlord, as well as the tenant, being accountable for their obligations in the award of exemplary damages made above.

Those claims are declined

Because the tenant has succeeded with claims brought, I reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5197191 — net $1,457.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: fail to repair deck	$680.00	fail to repair deck
Exemplary damages: breach of maintenance/ repair obligations	$500.00	breach of maintenance/ repair obligations
Compensation: beach of right to quiet enjoyment	$250.00	beach of right to quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,457.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,457.00