What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255279 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders that

How much money was awarded in case 5255279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255279?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12236056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255279 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders that

How much money was awarded in case 5255279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255279?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12236056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5255279 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5255279 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5255279. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders that suppression order are made in favour of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration: the responsibility for maintaining the top of the hedge lies with the landlord, the responsibility for trimming the side of the hedge adjacent to the house to a tidy state is the tenant responsibility.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to determine their claims.
The background is that following notice of a rent increase in December 2024, the parties’ relationship deteriorated. They now disagree over where responsibility lies for the trimming of a hedge and what is reasonable in terms of how they relate to each other.
[The landlord/s] are intending to sell the property due to a change in their circumstances and as such have given notice to [The tenant/s] that the tenancy will end on 10 October 2025. Prior to that however they seek a resolution to their dispute.
[The landlord/s] seek compensation for having to trim the hedge which they say is a tenant obligation and for a wasted trip to undertake an inspection which was prevented.
[The tenant/s] seeks a declaration regarding whose responsibility maintaining the hedge is, and exemplary damages for the landlord attempting to contract out of their obligations and breaching his quiet enjoyment.
The questions for the Tribunal to answer in order to determine the claims are as follows: a. Who has the responsibility for trimming the hedge? b. If it is a landlord maintenance responsibility, did they breach the law in the drafting of the tenancy agreement? c. Did either party breach the law in relation to the inspection? d. Has the landlord breached the law in the way they have dealt with their tenant?
I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the burden of proof which lies with the applicant of each claim and is the balance of probabilities. There is a conflict of evidence, which is not uncommon in cases of this kind. The role of the Tribunal is to assess the evidence and determine whether allegations are established to the requisite standard. In other words, determine, based on the evidence, what is more likely than not.

Who has responsibility for trimming the hedge?

The property is surrounded by gardens, trees and hedges. When the parties entered into the tenancy agreement, which was signed by both, a clause was included that [The tenant/s] was to mow the lawns and keep the gardens and hedges maintained. [The landlord/s] contracted an arborist to trim the trees.
The tenancy started in October 2023 with [The tenant/s] trimming the hedges. He was of the view that this was a landlord maintenance responsibility however did the work in a show of good faith.
Towards the end of 2024 [The tenant/s] faced some challenging circumstances and when advised in December that he would be required to increase his rental payments in February, he decided he would no longer undertake what he considers to be a landlord responsibility, and stopped trimming the hedge. It subsequently has got overgrown and is very close to the house, potentially allowing rodents to enter which is a concern to [The landlord/s].
[The tenant/s] says the clause in the contract is unlawful and he should not have to do the landlord’s work. It is also disingenuous he says to make him do so whilst advising him of a rent increase just before Christmas after what he had been through that year.
[The landlord/s] say [The tenant/s] contracted to trim the hedges and it is unreasonable of him now to break that agreement. They never considered the hedge a maintenance obligation as their previous property manager had it in the contract and it is not a large hedge. The law
The relevant law is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA states that the landlord must maintain the premise (including facilities) in a reasonable state of repair taking into account the age and character of the premise.
The corresponding obligation for a tenant is found in section 40(1)(c) of the RTA which is the obligation to keep the premises reasonably tidy.
Section 137(1) states that no person may enter into any transaction, contract or arrangement, or do anything: a. that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the RTA; or b. for the purpose, or having the effect of, evading, defeating or preventing the operation of any provision of that Act. Discussion
In considering whether the trimming of a hedge is maintenance (as in s45(1)(b)) or tidiness (as in s40(1)(c)) the size and nature of the hedge is most relevant.
There is disagreement over the height of the hedge at the commencement of the tenancy. [The landlord/s] say it was about chest height, [The tenant/s] says it was about 3 meters high.
The following are photos taken six weeks prior to the tenancy commencing:
[The tenant/s] says the photos are misleading as they do not show a tree next to the shed which was taller than the shed. 1
The term maintenance is not defined in the RTA. Generally, it is considered to mean the work that is required to keep a property in good repair. The Tribunal usually determines garden work as maintenance when it exceeds work that can be done with minimal tools and skill.
Usually if a hedge is higher than chest height and therefore requires the use of a ladder to be trimmed, I would consider it a landlord maintenance responsibility. Also, if it requires more serious tools then a pair of garden clippers, it may also be maintenance rather than tidiness.
When considering this hedge, I find that it would not require specialist tools or extensive time for a tenant to trim the side of the hedge to prevent it encroaching over the walkway. However, I do not consider it can be a tenant responsibility to trim the top of the hedge given its height. 2
Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is reasonable and in line with the RTA to require the tenant to trim the side of the hedge to ensure it is tidy and does not encroach on the walkway. I also consider it just for the landlord to have the responsibility of trimming the top of the hedge.
Therefore, [The tenant/s] is to tidy up the side of the hedge so it is not encroaching on the walkway, to the extent that he can do with a pair of clippers and without the use of a ladder. [The landlord/s] have the responsibility of trimming the top of the hedge.
The clause in the parties’ tenancy agreement therefore goes somewhat further than the RTA may envisage. It would be more in keeping with the RTA if the clause were to say the tenant is to mow the lawns and keep the gardens and hedges tidy.
Accordingly, the tenancy agreement provision does breach section 137 of the RTA. However, I do not consider that it was included by [The landlord/s] in an effort to evade the RTA or impose on [The tenant/s] greater responsibilities than he was required under law to bear. They had previously had the clause confirmed by a property manager who was deemed to be aware of the law, and for the majority of the tenancy [The tenant/s] has acted in accordance with it.
The claim for exemplary damages for a breach of s137 RTA is therefore dismissed.
I make no work orders as they were not applied for. However, bearing in mind that the tenancy is to end shortly, I note that it is [The tenant/s]’s responsibility to 1 He provided photographic evidence of this. 2 A small ladder is required to trim the top tidy the hedge to the extent that he is required prior to the return of possession of the property to [The landlord/s].

Did either party breach the law in relation to the inspection?

[The landlord/s] gave notice 3 to [The tenant/s] that they would be inspecting the property on 28 June. [The tenant/s] then advised them the day prior that the time proposed was inconvenient to him. [The landlord/s] responded that they would be continuing with the inspection and attended the property at the nominated time.
[The tenant/s] barricaded the front door and did not answer their knocks. When their knocks were not answered they attempted to gain entrance through the front door but could not do so. They therefore tried both glass roller doors which had also been locked from the inside. They could not complete the inspection and seek travel costs associated with the wasted trip and follow-up inspection.
[The tenant/s] says he refused the inspection for several reasons. Firstly, he had an unwell child, and it was the first day of the school holidays after a busy final week. As such he did not want to disturb his children unduly. He also considers that as the Tenancy Tribunal hearing was to occur on 7 July, just over a week later, it was in an appropriate time to conduct an inspection.
He also says that as this was only 86 days since the previous inspection, and given there were two other visits since the previous inspection, this inspection was excessive and unnecessary. Specifically, the previous inspection had been on 2 April. A follow-up visit occurred on 24 April to ascertain whether he had complied with the breach notice. A further visit on 10 May was conducted to ascertain whether he had complied with the second breach notice.
[The tenant/s] seeks exemplary damages for [The landlord/s] unlawfully entering the property. He says the visit upset and scared his children and further denigrated his relationship with his landlord.
[The landlord/s] say their insurance company requires them to inspect the property every three months otherwise their insurance could be in jeopardy. The previous inspection had raised issues, and the two follow-up visits were to ascertain whether or not those issues were being addressed. They considered they were following required process. The law
Pursuant to section 48(2)(b) of the RTA a landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of conducting an inspection provided that notice has been given of at least 48 hours and less than 14 days. 3 Pursuant to s48(2)(b) RTA
It is an unlawful act if the tenant fails to allow the landlord access without reasonable excuse if the landlord has complied with section 48RTA.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter a premise otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of s48 RTA. Notably, the definition of premises in s48 does not include land or facilities. Therefore, entry onto the land, but not the interior of the premises, as in this situation, is not a breach of s48.
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) RTA.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement or law. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach. Discussion
I am satisfied that [The landlord/s] gave [The tenant/s] the required notice of the inspection in accordance with their responsibility under section 48 RTA.
It is undisputed that [The tenant/s] refused his landlord access to the property after notice was provided. He considers he had reasonable excuse, the landlord does not. The term reasonable is an objective standard that a bystander would attribute to the situation whilst knowing the full context.
[The tenant/s]’ unwell daughter and the conflict between the parties given the impending hearing may well have been reasonable excuse. Where however [The tenant/s]’ defence fails is that he did not convey that to [The landlord/s]. He provided no reason why he considered the inspection should not go ahead therefore they were largely unaware of the situation.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s] did breach the RTA in preventing the inspection. I do not find that [The landlord/s] breached the RTA in attempting to enter the premises to continue with the inspection. They also did not enter the home therefore there was no unlawful entrance, as such the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I also dismiss [The landlord/s]’ claim for compensation for the additionally required trip from their home, a number of kilometres away. The reasons for this are that they were able to conduct an inspection of a neighbouring property which they had arranged for the same time, it was therefore not entirely a wasted trip.
Further, section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a fair way considering the merits and justice of the case. Whilst I accept that this was an extra cost they should not have been put to, I do not consider it just to award compensation. Given the level of conflict between the parties and the imminent Tribunal hearing, it was unwise to schedule an inspection at this time. I do not accept the submission that pushing it out for one week would have jeopardised the property’s insurance cover. Accordingly, this claim is also dismissed.

Has the landlord breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment?

[The tenant/s] is of the view that [The landlord/s] have treated him unfairly. He says they have coerced him into following their direction, bullied him, acted under handedly with respect to their intentions to sell the property, and intimidated him.
He considers that their request in the breach notice to get the premise to the standard it was at the commencement of the tenancy was unlawful and was made so they could market the property. He sees this as the Symonds using him as a “groundskeeper”. This he submits is in breach of his quiet enjoyment and as such he seeks exemplary damages.
[The landlord/s] firmly deny these allegations. They say they have been following the advice they found on the tenancy services website and helpline and were merely trying to address the breaches of the tenancy agreement as they saw them. They were advised to issue breach notices which is what they have done. The law
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) RTA. 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.
These actions indicate that generally there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person or persons which causes distress. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would generally be unlikely to amount to harassment. The definitions also require the act to be intentional; careless or negligence is not sufficient. Discussion
Whilst [The landlord/s] have acted in a prescriptively legal way, I do not find it established in evidence they that they have acted in an effort to wear [The tenant/s] down or to harass him. It is certainly different to the way that [The tenant/s] has been treated by previous landlords or that similar situations have been dealt with. I understand why [The tenant/s] is feeling as he does however the evidence does not meet the high threshold that is required to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment.
My interpretation of the situation is that both parties have attempted to do what they have thought is right, however unfortunately miscommunications and misunderstandings have led to the current conflict.
The tenancy does not end for some two months and therefore further interaction between the parties will be required. In the interests of completing the tenancy with as little conflict as possible I urge the parties to consider each other’s perspectives and communicate as much as possible to resolve any issues. I wish them all the best in that endeavour.

Are other orders required?

I note that [The tenant/s] did seek an order in relation to his ability to use the shed. However, having heard the evidence from the parties and as discussed at the hearing it was agreed at the beginning of the tenancy that the shed did not form part of the tenancy premise. Whilst this was not specifically noted in the tenancy agreement, the parties both clearly agreed to this condition of the tenancy. Accordingly, [The tenant/s] has no claim here.
Further, it was discussed at the hearing that no further quarterly inspections are required however there will be one final inspection shortly prior to the end of the tenancy. This will be to enable the parties to understand what is required of each other to end the tenancy.
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.
Finally, both parties seek suppression orders. Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest.
I am satisfied that both parties have been successful to an extent in their positions and there is no public interest in being made aware of their identifying details. Accordingly, I uphold both parties’ applications for suppression orders.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5255279. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders that suppression order are made in favour of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration: the responsibility for maintaining the top of the hedge lies with the landlord, the responsibility for trimming the side of the hedge adjacent to the house to a tidy state is the tenant responsibility.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to determine their claims.
The background is that following notice of a rent increase in December 2024, the parties’ relationship deteriorated. They now disagree over where responsibility lies for the trimming of a hedge and what is reasonable in terms of how they relate to each other.
[The landlord/s] are intending to sell the property due to a change in their circumstances and as such have given notice to [The tenant/s] that the tenancy will end on 10 October 2025. Prior to that however they seek a resolution to their dispute.
[The landlord/s] seek compensation for having to trim the hedge which they say is a tenant obligation and for a wasted trip to undertake an inspection which was prevented.
[The tenant/s] seeks a declaration regarding whose responsibility maintaining the hedge is, and exemplary damages for the landlord attempting to contract out of their obligations and breaching his quiet enjoyment.
The questions for the Tribunal to answer in order to determine the claims are as follows: a. Who has the responsibility for trimming the hedge? b. If it is a landlord maintenance responsibility, did they breach the law in the drafting of the tenancy agreement? c. Did either party breach the law in relation to the inspection? d. Has the landlord breached the law in the way they have dealt with their tenant?
I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the burden of proof which lies with the applicant of each claim and is the balance of probabilities. There is a conflict of evidence, which is not uncommon in cases of this kind. The role of the Tribunal is to assess the evidence and determine whether allegations are established to the requisite standard. In other words, determine, based on the evidence, what is more likely than not.

Who has responsibility for trimming the hedge?

The property is surrounded by gardens, trees and hedges. When the parties entered into the tenancy agreement, which was signed by both, a clause was included that [The tenant/s] was to mow the lawns and keep the gardens and hedges maintained. [The landlord/s] contracted an arborist to trim the trees.
The tenancy started in October 2023 with [The tenant/s] trimming the hedges. He was of the view that this was a landlord maintenance responsibility however did the work in a show of good faith.
Towards the end of 2024 [The tenant/s] faced some challenging circumstances and when advised in December that he would be required to increase his rental payments in February, he decided he would no longer undertake what he considers to be a landlord responsibility, and stopped trimming the hedge. It subsequently has got overgrown and is very close to the house, potentially allowing rodents to enter which is a concern to [The landlord/s].
[The tenant/s] says the clause in the contract is unlawful and he should not have to do the landlord’s work. It is also disingenuous he says to make him do so whilst advising him of a rent increase just before Christmas after what he had been through that year.
[The landlord/s] say [The tenant/s] contracted to trim the hedges and it is unreasonable of him now to break that agreement. They never considered the hedge a maintenance obligation as their previous property manager had it in the contract and it is not a large hedge. The law
The relevant law is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA states that the landlord must maintain the premise (including facilities) in a reasonable state of repair taking into account the age and character of the premise.
The corresponding obligation for a tenant is found in section 40(1)(c) of the RTA which is the obligation to keep the premises reasonably tidy.
Section 137(1) states that no person may enter into any transaction, contract or arrangement, or do anything: a. that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the RTA; or b. for the purpose, or having the effect of, evading, defeating or preventing the operation of any provision of that Act. Discussion
In considering whether the trimming of a hedge is maintenance (as in s45(1)(b)) or tidiness (as in s40(1)(c)) the size and nature of the hedge is most relevant.
There is disagreement over the height of the hedge at the commencement of the tenancy. [The landlord/s] say it was about chest height, [The tenant/s] says it was about 3 meters high.
The following are photos taken six weeks prior to the tenancy commencing:
[The tenant/s] says the photos are misleading as they do not show a tree next to the shed which was taller than the shed. 1
The term maintenance is not defined in the RTA. Generally, it is considered to mean the work that is required to keep a property in good repair. The Tribunal usually determines garden work as maintenance when it exceeds work that can be done with minimal tools and skill.
Usually if a hedge is higher than chest height and therefore requires the use of a ladder to be trimmed, I would consider it a landlord maintenance responsibility. Also, if it requires more serious tools then a pair of garden clippers, it may also be maintenance rather than tidiness.
When considering this hedge, I find that it would not require specialist tools or extensive time for a tenant to trim the side of the hedge to prevent it encroaching over the walkway. However, I do not consider it can be a tenant responsibility to trim the top of the hedge given its height. 2
Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is reasonable and in line with the RTA to require the tenant to trim the side of the hedge to ensure it is tidy and does not encroach on the walkway. I also consider it just for the landlord to have the responsibility of trimming the top of the hedge.
Therefore, [The tenant/s] is to tidy up the side of the hedge so it is not encroaching on the walkway, to the extent that he can do with a pair of clippers and without the use of a ladder. [The landlord/s] have the responsibility of trimming the top of the hedge.
The clause in the parties’ tenancy agreement therefore goes somewhat further than the RTA may envisage. It would be more in keeping with the RTA if the clause were to say the tenant is to mow the lawns and keep the gardens and hedges tidy.
Accordingly, the tenancy agreement provision does breach section 137 of the RTA. However, I do not consider that it was included by [The landlord/s] in an effort to evade the RTA or impose on [The tenant/s] greater responsibilities than he was required under law to bear. They had previously had the clause confirmed by a property manager who was deemed to be aware of the law, and for the majority of the tenancy [The tenant/s] has acted in accordance with it.
The claim for exemplary damages for a breach of s137 RTA is therefore dismissed.
I make no work orders as they were not applied for. However, bearing in mind that the tenancy is to end shortly, I note that it is [The tenant/s]’s responsibility to 1 He provided photographic evidence of this. 2 A small ladder is required to trim the top tidy the hedge to the extent that he is required prior to the return of possession of the property to [The landlord/s].

Did either party breach the law in relation to the inspection?

[The landlord/s] gave notice 3 to [The tenant/s] that they would be inspecting the property on 28 June. [The tenant/s] then advised them the day prior that the time proposed was inconvenient to him. [The landlord/s] responded that they would be continuing with the inspection and attended the property at the nominated time.
[The tenant/s] barricaded the front door and did not answer their knocks. When their knocks were not answered they attempted to gain entrance through the front door but could not do so. They therefore tried both glass roller doors which had also been locked from the inside. They could not complete the inspection and seek travel costs associated with the wasted trip and follow-up inspection.
[The tenant/s] says he refused the inspection for several reasons. Firstly, he had an unwell child, and it was the first day of the school holidays after a busy final week. As such he did not want to disturb his children unduly. He also considers that as the Tenancy Tribunal hearing was to occur on 7 July, just over a week later, it was in an appropriate time to conduct an inspection.
He also says that as this was only 86 days since the previous inspection, and given there were two other visits since the previous inspection, this inspection was excessive and unnecessary. Specifically, the previous inspection had been on 2 April. A follow-up visit occurred on 24 April to ascertain whether he had complied with the breach notice. A further visit on 10 May was conducted to ascertain whether he had complied with the second breach notice.
[The tenant/s] seeks exemplary damages for [The landlord/s] unlawfully entering the property. He says the visit upset and scared his children and further denigrated his relationship with his landlord.
[The landlord/s] say their insurance company requires them to inspect the property every three months otherwise their insurance could be in jeopardy. The previous inspection had raised issues, and the two follow-up visits were to ascertain whether or not those issues were being addressed. They considered they were following required process. The law
Pursuant to section 48(2)(b) of the RTA a landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of conducting an inspection provided that notice has been given of at least 48 hours and less than 14 days. 3 Pursuant to s48(2)(b) RTA
It is an unlawful act if the tenant fails to allow the landlord access without reasonable excuse if the landlord has complied with section 48RTA.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter a premise otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of s48 RTA. Notably, the definition of premises in s48 does not include land or facilities. Therefore, entry onto the land, but not the interior of the premises, as in this situation, is not a breach of s48.
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) RTA.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement or law. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach. Discussion
I am satisfied that [The landlord/s] gave [The tenant/s] the required notice of the inspection in accordance with their responsibility under section 48 RTA.
It is undisputed that [The tenant/s] refused his landlord access to the property after notice was provided. He considers he had reasonable excuse, the landlord does not. The term reasonable is an objective standard that a bystander would attribute to the situation whilst knowing the full context.
[The tenant/s]’ unwell daughter and the conflict between the parties given the impending hearing may well have been reasonable excuse. Where however [The tenant/s]’ defence fails is that he did not convey that to [The landlord/s]. He provided no reason why he considered the inspection should not go ahead therefore they were largely unaware of the situation.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s] did breach the RTA in preventing the inspection. I do not find that [The landlord/s] breached the RTA in attempting to enter the premises to continue with the inspection. They also did not enter the home therefore there was no unlawful entrance, as such the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I also dismiss [The landlord/s]’ claim for compensation for the additionally required trip from their home, a number of kilometres away. The reasons for this are that they were able to conduct an inspection of a neighbouring property which they had arranged for the same time, it was therefore not entirely a wasted trip.
Further, section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a fair way considering the merits and justice of the case. Whilst I accept that this was an extra cost they should not have been put to, I do not consider it just to award compensation. Given the level of conflict between the parties and the imminent Tribunal hearing, it was unwise to schedule an inspection at this time. I do not accept the submission that pushing it out for one week would have jeopardised the property’s insurance cover. Accordingly, this claim is also dismissed.

Has the landlord breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment?

[The tenant/s] is of the view that [The landlord/s] have treated him unfairly. He says they have coerced him into following their direction, bullied him, acted under handedly with respect to their intentions to sell the property, and intimidated him.
He considers that their request in the breach notice to get the premise to the standard it was at the commencement of the tenancy was unlawful and was made so they could market the property. He sees this as the Symonds using him as a “groundskeeper”. This he submits is in breach of his quiet enjoyment and as such he seeks exemplary damages.
[The landlord/s] firmly deny these allegations. They say they have been following the advice they found on the tenancy services website and helpline and were merely trying to address the breaches of the tenancy agreement as they saw them. They were advised to issue breach notices which is what they have done. The law
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) RTA. 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.
These actions indicate that generally there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person or persons which causes distress. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would generally be unlikely to amount to harassment. The definitions also require the act to be intentional; careless or negligence is not sufficient. Discussion
Whilst [The landlord/s] have acted in a prescriptively legal way, I do not find it established in evidence they that they have acted in an effort to wear [The tenant/s] down or to harass him. It is certainly different to the way that [The tenant/s] has been treated by previous landlords or that similar situations have been dealt with. I understand why [The tenant/s] is feeling as he does however the evidence does not meet the high threshold that is required to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment.
My interpretation of the situation is that both parties have attempted to do what they have thought is right, however unfortunately miscommunications and misunderstandings have led to the current conflict.
The tenancy does not end for some two months and therefore further interaction between the parties will be required. In the interests of completing the tenancy with as little conflict as possible I urge the parties to consider each other’s perspectives and communicate as much as possible to resolve any issues. I wish them all the best in that endeavour.

Are other orders required?

I note that [The tenant/s] did seek an order in relation to his ability to use the shed. However, having heard the evidence from the parties and as discussed at the hearing it was agreed at the beginning of the tenancy that the shed did not form part of the tenancy premise. Whilst this was not specifically noted in the tenancy agreement, the parties both clearly agreed to this condition of the tenancy. Accordingly, [The tenant/s] has no claim here.
Further, it was discussed at the hearing that no further quarterly inspections are required however there will be one final inspection shortly prior to the end of the tenancy. This will be to enable the parties to understand what is required of each other to end the tenancy.
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.
Finally, both parties seek suppression orders. Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest.
I am satisfied that both parties have been successful to an extent in their positions and there is no public interest in being made aware of their identifying details. Accordingly, I uphold both parties’ applications for suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255279 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255279 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who has responsibility for trimming the hedge?

Did either party breach the law in relation to the inspection?

Has the landlord breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment?

Are other orders required?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who has responsibility for trimming the hedge?

Did either party breach the law in relation to the inspection?

Has the landlord breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment?

Are other orders required?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions