What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229353 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5229353?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $777.26 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Remote: $449.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229353?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12290810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229353 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5229353?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $777.26 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Remote: $449.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229353?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12290810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229353 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229353 — net $1,126.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$1,400.00		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Lock/key replacement	$777.26		Lock/key replacement
Replace garage remote	$449.53		Replace garage remote
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$2,626.79	$1,500.00
Net award	$1,126.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,126.79

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,126.79 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond as follows: [The tenant/s]- $273.21 [The landlord/s]- $1126.79
The claims for compensation for window repairs, reseeding paddocks, repair of fence and stock feed are withdrawn by the landlord.
The claim that the notice to terminate was retaliatory is dismissed.
The claim for payment of power charges is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 August 2025 which took place by teleconference. The tenant attended with her husband and both landlords attended.
Although the tenancy agreement names one tenant, [The tenant/s], she lived at the premises with her husband and children.
This hearing was adjourned part heard on 3 June 2025.for further evidence and further hearing time as a cross application was filed by the landlord.
These premises are part of a 10-acre rural lifestyle block which includes two residential dwellings, a shed, an orchard and paddocks.
The tenancy began in October 2024. The tenancy agreement stated “The farmhouse” as the description of the premises but also stated that the tenants could have one dog and 3 horses.
The landlords also have animals on the land and personal goods stored in a shed.
The other dwelling on the land is named “The cottage” and was rented to a different tenant who also had animals.
The tenants moved into the premises with their children and animals and initially the relationship between the parties was good and there was flexibility in the arrangements.
Sadly, the relationship began to deteriorate between the tenants, the landlords and the neighbouring tenant.
On 7 April 2025 the landlords gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy and the tenancy ended on 6 May 2025.
The tenant claimed that the landlords issued a retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlords cross applied and sought compensation for the following: (a)Rent arrears of $1400 (b)Power charges of $349.99 (c)Insurance excesses of 7 x $1000 for window repairs totalling $7000 (d)Cost of reseeding paddocks of $2039 (e)Cost of repairing invisible fence $129 (f)Replacing locks - $777.26 (g)Replacing garage remote - $449.53 (h)Stock feed - $500
The tenant accepts the rent arrears and the claims that the keys and garage remote were not returned. The landlord has provided proof of the amounts owing and these are ordered as sought.
The tenant seeks a set off against the amounts owed on the basis of the claimed breaches by the landlord which will be considered later in this order.
The tenant disputed the remainder of the landlord claims.
At the hearing on 12 August 2025 the landlord advised that they had not filed any further evidence and do not wish to pursue the claims for window repairs, reseeding paddocks, repair of fence and stock feed. Accordingly, these are withdrawn and there is no need to discuss the evidence filed in respect of these claims.

How much is owed for power?

The landlord seeks payment of power charges of $349.99. The landlord provided a copy of the May power bill for the premises in the sum of $549.98 and is seeking that the tenant pay a portion of this bill as the power for both dwellings and the garage used by the landlord are on the same power account.
Section 39 of The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord is responsible for all outgoings that apply whether or not the premises is occupied. That is why the landlord is responsible for fixed charges on water bills. The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the tenancy premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities.
In the case of these premises there is no way to separately meter the power usage of the farmhouse occupied by the tenant and therefore no way to establish the power usage exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. I find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the power charges sought and the claim is dismissed.

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

On 7 April 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day notice ending the tenancy on 6 July 2025. The tenant found alternative accommodation and the tenancy ended on 6 May 2025. The tenant claims the notice to terminate was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claimed that the notice was retaliatory as the neighbour had sent them a message a few days previously regarding their power usage. They stated that they had been willing to discuss the amount paid for power but received notice to end the tenancy.
The grounds for a retaliatory notice are that the notice was motivated by the tenant exercising a right or making a complaint against the landlord. The correspondence indicates that there had been communication difficulties between the parties dating back some months. The issue in early April was a dispute between the neighbouring tenants but there was insufficient evidence provided of the tenant exercising a right or complaining about the landlord immediately prior to the notice being issued.
Having considered the evidence, whilst there had been communication difficulties between the parties, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the notice was retaliatory. Did the landlords breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlords deny that there was a breach of quiet enjoyment and claim that the issues arose from the tenant’s difficult behaviour and breaching arrangements regarding the animals at the premises.
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. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38 (1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this section premises includes facilities which are defined as including any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles; recreational areas; lawns, gardens, and outhouses. See section 2 and 38 (4) of the Act.
I have carefully considered the evidence provided; the tenancy agreement together with the verbal, text messages and media evidence of both parties and find that the landlords have breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises for the following reasons: (a) The landlord failed to provide clarity of terms from the beginning of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement records the address as “[Tenancy address suppressed]” but as the agreement records 3 horses are approved it can be presumed some outside area was also included in the tenancy from the commencement, but this area is not specified. There is no record in the tenancy agreement that the landlord will be continuing to access the property on a regular basis. (b)Throughout the tenancy the parties had discussions about varying the number of animals and the location of animals but nothing is clearly recorded. The result of this was that when the relationship broke down there was no clarity regarding the terms of the tenancy which created uncertainty and stress for the tenants. (c)There is a second dwelling on the property and no clarity of boundaries between the two dwellings was recorded which was a source of ongoing tension. (d)There was no separation of power meterage between the two premises and the shed that the landlord used. The landlord charged a portion of power to the tenants in both dwellings and not surprisingly conflict arose between the tenants regarding usage. This is the responsibility of the landlord for charging power when exclusive use could not be proved. (e)The landlord stated that during the 7-month tenancy they came to the premises 19 times to attend to their animals or to access their goods in the shed, 9 times with contractors and 9 times to go to the cottage. This amounts to 37 visits. The landlord agreed on two occasions they approached the tenant at the kitchen window and talked to her. They stated that they communicated with the tenant prior to the visits however I find that regardless of notice this volume of visits to the property had the effect of breaching the tenants right to private enjoyment of the premises. (f)The result of a single lifestyle property being used by three different groups of people during this tenancy with no clearly written terms in place has meant that the tenants felt uncertain and on edge during their tenancy and were not able to have quiet enjoyment and privacy in their use of the premises.
I find that the tenants have proved on the balance of probabilities that by failing to provide a clear description of the tenancy premises, by creating an arrangement whereby three separate parties were all using the facilities at the premises with no written terms and by visiting the premises multiple times over a seven month tenancy the landlords have caused or permitted interference with the tenants reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the premises.
The landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)). Awards of compensation are generally modest.
The tenants seek compensation taking in to account the stress they have suffered due to the ongoing communication difficulties due to the uncertainties with the arrangements, the regular visits of the landlord to the property and the power charges they were required to pay without the landlord being able to calculate their exclusive usage.
Having considered the facts in this case I find that it is appropriate to award a lump sum in compensation to the tenant. The amount ordered is not able to be exactly calculated but a broadbrush amount taking in to account the circumstances of this case including the effects of the breach and the short length of the tenancy. I order compensation of $1500.00 which will be applied to reduce the debt owed by the tenant to the landlords. Filing fee/suppression
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no orders for reimbursement of either filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case including the relationship break down between the parties, the roles that the parties have in the community and the rural community they are part of the Tribunal considers that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their identities being published and orders suppression of all party names in any publication of this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229353 — net $1,126.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$1,400.00		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Lock/key replacement	$777.26		Lock/key replacement
Replace garage remote	$449.53		Replace garage remote
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$2,626.79	$1,500.00
Net award	$1,126.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,126.79

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,126.79 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond as follows: [The tenant/s]- $273.21 [The landlord/s]- $1126.79
The claims for compensation for window repairs, reseeding paddocks, repair of fence and stock feed are withdrawn by the landlord.
The claim that the notice to terminate was retaliatory is dismissed.
The claim for payment of power charges is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 August 2025 which took place by teleconference. The tenant attended with her husband and both landlords attended.
Although the tenancy agreement names one tenant, [The tenant/s], she lived at the premises with her husband and children.
This hearing was adjourned part heard on 3 June 2025.for further evidence and further hearing time as a cross application was filed by the landlord.
These premises are part of a 10-acre rural lifestyle block which includes two residential dwellings, a shed, an orchard and paddocks.
The tenancy began in October 2024. The tenancy agreement stated “The farmhouse” as the description of the premises but also stated that the tenants could have one dog and 3 horses.
The landlords also have animals on the land and personal goods stored in a shed.
The other dwelling on the land is named “The cottage” and was rented to a different tenant who also had animals.
The tenants moved into the premises with their children and animals and initially the relationship between the parties was good and there was flexibility in the arrangements.
Sadly, the relationship began to deteriorate between the tenants, the landlords and the neighbouring tenant.
On 7 April 2025 the landlords gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy and the tenancy ended on 6 May 2025.
The tenant claimed that the landlords issued a retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlords cross applied and sought compensation for the following: (a)Rent arrears of $1400 (b)Power charges of $349.99 (c)Insurance excesses of 7 x $1000 for window repairs totalling $7000 (d)Cost of reseeding paddocks of $2039 (e)Cost of repairing invisible fence $129 (f)Replacing locks - $777.26 (g)Replacing garage remote - $449.53 (h)Stock feed - $500
The tenant accepts the rent arrears and the claims that the keys and garage remote were not returned. The landlord has provided proof of the amounts owing and these are ordered as sought.
The tenant seeks a set off against the amounts owed on the basis of the claimed breaches by the landlord which will be considered later in this order.
The tenant disputed the remainder of the landlord claims.
At the hearing on 12 August 2025 the landlord advised that they had not filed any further evidence and do not wish to pursue the claims for window repairs, reseeding paddocks, repair of fence and stock feed. Accordingly, these are withdrawn and there is no need to discuss the evidence filed in respect of these claims.

How much is owed for power?

The landlord seeks payment of power charges of $349.99. The landlord provided a copy of the May power bill for the premises in the sum of $549.98 and is seeking that the tenant pay a portion of this bill as the power for both dwellings and the garage used by the landlord are on the same power account.
Section 39 of The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord is responsible for all outgoings that apply whether or not the premises is occupied. That is why the landlord is responsible for fixed charges on water bills. The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the tenancy premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities.
In the case of these premises there is no way to separately meter the power usage of the farmhouse occupied by the tenant and therefore no way to establish the power usage exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. I find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the power charges sought and the claim is dismissed.

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

On 7 April 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day notice ending the tenancy on 6 July 2025. The tenant found alternative accommodation and the tenancy ended on 6 May 2025. The tenant claims the notice to terminate was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claimed that the notice was retaliatory as the neighbour had sent them a message a few days previously regarding their power usage. They stated that they had been willing to discuss the amount paid for power but received notice to end the tenancy.
The grounds for a retaliatory notice are that the notice was motivated by the tenant exercising a right or making a complaint against the landlord. The correspondence indicates that there had been communication difficulties between the parties dating back some months. The issue in early April was a dispute between the neighbouring tenants but there was insufficient evidence provided of the tenant exercising a right or complaining about the landlord immediately prior to the notice being issued.
Having considered the evidence, whilst there had been communication difficulties between the parties, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the notice was retaliatory. Did the landlords breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlords deny that there was a breach of quiet enjoyment and claim that the issues arose from the tenant’s difficult behaviour and breaching arrangements regarding the animals at the premises.
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. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38 (1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this section premises includes facilities which are defined as including any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles; recreational areas; lawns, gardens, and outhouses. See section 2 and 38 (4) of the Act.
I have carefully considered the evidence provided; the tenancy agreement together with the verbal, text messages and media evidence of both parties and find that the landlords have breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises for the following reasons: (a) The landlord failed to provide clarity of terms from the beginning of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement records the address as “[Tenancy address suppressed]” but as the agreement records 3 horses are approved it can be presumed some outside area was also included in the tenancy from the commencement, but this area is not specified. There is no record in the tenancy agreement that the landlord will be continuing to access the property on a regular basis. (b)Throughout the tenancy the parties had discussions about varying the number of animals and the location of animals but nothing is clearly recorded. The result of this was that when the relationship broke down there was no clarity regarding the terms of the tenancy which created uncertainty and stress for the tenants. (c)There is a second dwelling on the property and no clarity of boundaries between the two dwellings was recorded which was a source of ongoing tension. (d)There was no separation of power meterage between the two premises and the shed that the landlord used. The landlord charged a portion of power to the tenants in both dwellings and not surprisingly conflict arose between the tenants regarding usage. This is the responsibility of the landlord for charging power when exclusive use could not be proved. (e)The landlord stated that during the 7-month tenancy they came to the premises 19 times to attend to their animals or to access their goods in the shed, 9 times with contractors and 9 times to go to the cottage. This amounts to 37 visits. The landlord agreed on two occasions they approached the tenant at the kitchen window and talked to her. They stated that they communicated with the tenant prior to the visits however I find that regardless of notice this volume of visits to the property had the effect of breaching the tenants right to private enjoyment of the premises. (f)The result of a single lifestyle property being used by three different groups of people during this tenancy with no clearly written terms in place has meant that the tenants felt uncertain and on edge during their tenancy and were not able to have quiet enjoyment and privacy in their use of the premises.
I find that the tenants have proved on the balance of probabilities that by failing to provide a clear description of the tenancy premises, by creating an arrangement whereby three separate parties were all using the facilities at the premises with no written terms and by visiting the premises multiple times over a seven month tenancy the landlords have caused or permitted interference with the tenants reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the premises.
The landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)). Awards of compensation are generally modest.
The tenants seek compensation taking in to account the stress they have suffered due to the ongoing communication difficulties due to the uncertainties with the arrangements, the regular visits of the landlord to the property and the power charges they were required to pay without the landlord being able to calculate their exclusive usage.
Having considered the facts in this case I find that it is appropriate to award a lump sum in compensation to the tenant. The amount ordered is not able to be exactly calculated but a broadbrush amount taking in to account the circumstances of this case including the effects of the breach and the short length of the tenancy. I order compensation of $1500.00 which will be applied to reduce the debt owed by the tenant to the landlords. Filing fee/suppression
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no orders for reimbursement of either filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case including the relationship break down between the parties, the roles that the parties have in the community and the rural community they are part of the Tribunal considers that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their identities being published and orders suppression of all party names in any publication of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229353 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229353 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for power?

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for power?

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions