What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306505 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5306505?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306505?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306505?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12604667-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306505 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5306505?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306505?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306505?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12604667-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5306505 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This was a 12-month fixed term tenancy, which started in June 2024. The Landlord sold the premises, which are part of a complex, in about June 2025. The Tenant has since moved out and now seeks compensation. She says the Landlord has: (a)interfered with her quiet enjoyment by allowing the carport that came with the premises to be used by another occupant of the complex; and (b)failed to notify her that the Landlord had put the premises on the market for sale.
The Landlord says that he did not know that another occupant was using the carport and did not authorise that use. He also says that the property was not on the market for sale. He was approached by another owner of a unit in the complex who offered to buy the premises from him. He notified the Tenant, in writing, as soon as an agreement was reached. The issues
The issues I must determine are: (a)Did the Landlord interfere with the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment? (b)What remedy is the Tenant entitled to? (c)Did the Landlord fail to advise the Tenant that the premises had been put on the market for sale? Did the Landlord interfere with the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The Tenant was entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the Landlord or any person claiming under the Landlord. 1
The Tenant says that the premises included two carparks – an uncovered park at the front of the unit and a carport at the rear of the complex. The Tenant had unrestricted use of the carpark at the front of the unit throughout her tenancy. However, she could not use the carport, because the owner of another unit used the carport and claimed that the Landlord had agreed to allow her to do so. The Tenant says that the caused inconvenience, as she would have to ask guests to park on the road or the grass.
The Landlord says that the premises came with only one carpark and that he had never given the other occupant permission to use the carport. He also says that the Tenant did not tell him that the other occupant was using the carport until June this year, nearly 12 months after the tenancy started and close to the end of the 12-month fixed term. My assessment
I find the following: (a)The premises came with one carpark. The Tenant has not proven that the premises came with two carparks. The tenancy agreement does not mention the number of carparks that came with the premises. The Tenant says that she saw an advertisement saying the premises came with two carparks. She did not provide a copy of the advertisement. The Landlord says that the premises would only have been advertised as having one carpark – the carport. The other carpark at the front of the unit is on a common area. This is confirmed by the unit plan for the property, which shows that the premises have only one carpark – the carport. (b)The carport was part of the premises. The Landlord agrees and says that the carport was for the exclusive use of the Tenant, as the occupier of his unit. (c)The other occupant used the carport throughout the tenancy. There was no dispute by either party on this point. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(1). (d)The other occupant claimed a right to use the carport through the Landlord. I accept the Tenant’s evidence on this point, which was not disputed by the Landlord. (e)The Landlord did not authorise the other occupant to use the carport. I accept the Landlord’s evidence on this point, and it was not challenged by the Tenant. (f)The Landlord did not know that the other occupant was using the carport until June 2025. I accept the Landlord’s evidence on this point and the Tenant agreed that she Landlord about the carport use until June. (g)But the Landlord knew that the other occupant had restricted the access to the carport. Earlier in the tenancy, the Tenant did tell the Landlord that the other occupant had built a gate across the driveway, limiting her access to the rear of the property. The Landlord took no steps to remedy this. By failing to act, I am satisfied that the Landlord tacitly allowed the other occupant to restrict access to the carport area.
Based on these findings, I am satisfied that the Tenant has proven that she was unable to use the carport, which formed part of the premises because the other occupant, claiming a right through the Landlord, used the carport. I also satisfied that the Landlord tacitly allowed the other occupant to restrict access to the carport. He did not act in response to the Tenant’s notification that the other occupant had built a gate across the driveway, thus restricting her access to the carport and interrupting her quiet enjoyment of the premises.

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

The Tenant claims compensation of $3,575 for being unable to use the carport. She says that the carport had a value of $65 per week, and she arrived at the total by calculating that value over one year.
Taking a step back and assessing the justice of the case, I am not satisfied that the Tenant is entitled to any compensation, for two reasons.
First, the Landlord’s breach was technical at most. He did fail to act when made aware that the other occupant had built a gate across the driveway, which put him on notice that another occupant of the complex was inhibiting access to the carport. But he did not know that the Tenant had no access to the carport. The Tenant did not tell him that the other occupant was using the carport until near the end of the Tenancy.
Second, the Tenant has not proven that she suffered any loss by being unable to access or use the carport. The premises included one carpark, so the Tenant was entitled to the use of one carpark. The Tenant had unrestricted use of one carpark throughout her tenancy - the uncovered carpark at the front of the premises. In that sense, the Tenant got what she paid for – a carpark for her exclusive use.
Although it was a different carpark from the one that she should have had access to, the carpark she used was much more convenient than the carport. The carpark was at the front of the unit, beside the front steps. The carport was at the rear of the complex, much further away from her unit. Indeed, based on what I heard, if the Tenant had been given a choice as to which carpark she would have preferred to use, I think it likely she would have chosen the carpark at the front of the premises.
I therefore dismiss the Tenant’s claim for compensation. Did the Landlord fail to notify the Tenant that the premises were on the market for sale?
Where premises are on the market for sale, a landlord must provide written notification to the tenant. 2 The Tenant says that the Landlord listed the property for sale and provided no written notification.
The Landlord says that the property was not on the market for sale. He says that he was approached by another occupant, who wanted to buy his unit. He had not advertised the property for sale. The approach was unsolicited. The Landlord says that once he reached an agreement with that person, he immediately notified the Tenant, in writing.
I acknowledge that the Tenant felt unsettled and faced uncertainty as to the future of her tenancy once she was told the property was being sold. She also felt that she should have been given more notice of the sale. However, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has breached his responsibilities. The property was not on the market for sale. The approach to purchase the property was unsolicited, and the Landlord notified the Tenant immediately once an agreement had been reached.
The Tenant’s application on this ground is therefore dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
Both parties have had a modicum of success. The Tenant has proven a technical breach of the Landlord’s responsibility to provide quiet enjoyment and the Landlord has successfully defended the compensation claim and the claim he failed to comply with his obligation to notify that the premises were on the market for sale.
I therefore grant both parties name suppression. I make no orders regarding the filing fee.

Reasons

This was a 12-month fixed term tenancy, which started in June 2024. The Landlord sold the premises, which are part of a complex, in about June 2025. The Tenant has since moved out and now seeks compensation. She says the Landlord has: (a)interfered with her quiet enjoyment by allowing the carport that came with the premises to be used by another occupant of the complex; and (b)failed to notify her that the Landlord had put the premises on the market for sale.

The Landlord says that he did not know that another occupant was using the carport and did not authorise that use. He also says that the property was not on the market for sale. He was approached by another owner of a unit in the complex who offered to buy the premises from him. He notified the Tenant, in writing, as soon as an agreement was reached. The issues

The issues I must determine are: (a)Did the Landlord interfere with the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment? (b)What remedy is the Tenant entitled to? (c)Did the Landlord fail to advise the Tenant that the premises had been put on the market for sale? Did the Landlord interfere with the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

The Tenant was entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the Landlord or any person claiming under the Landlord. 1

The Tenant says that the premises included two carparks – an uncovered park at the front of the unit and a carport at the rear of the complex. The Tenant had unrestricted use of the carpark at the front of the unit throughout her tenancy. However, she could not use the carport, because the owner of another unit used the carport and claimed that the Landlord had agreed to allow her to do so. The Tenant says that the caused inconvenience, as she would have to ask guests to park on the road or the grass.

The Landlord says that the premises came with only one carpark and that he had never given the other occupant permission to use the carport. He also says that the Tenant did not tell him that the other occupant was using the carport until June this year, nearly 12 months after the tenancy started and close to the end of the 12-month fixed term. My assessment

I find the following: (a)The premises came with one carpark. The Tenant has not proven that the premises came with two carparks. The tenancy agreement does not mention the number of carparks that came with the premises. The Tenant says that she saw an advertisement saying the premises came with two carparks. She did not provide a copy of the advertisement. The Landlord says that the premises would only have been advertised as having one carpark – the carport. The other carpark at the front of the unit is on a common area. This is confirmed by the unit plan for the property, which shows that the premises have only one carpark – the carport. (b)The carport was part of the premises. The Landlord agrees and says that the carport was for the exclusive use of the Tenant, as the occupier of his unit. (c)The other occupant used the carport throughout the tenancy. There was no dispute by either party on this point. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(1). (d)The other occupant claimed a right to use the carport through the Landlord. I accept the Tenant’s evidence on this point, which was not disputed by the Landlord. (e)The Landlord did not authorise the other occupant to use the carport. I accept the Landlord’s evidence on this point, and it was not challenged by the Tenant. (f)The Landlord did not know that the other occupant was using the carport until June 2025. I accept the Landlord’s evidence on this point and the Tenant agreed that she Landlord about the carport use until June. (g)But the Landlord knew that the other occupant had restricted the access to the carport. Earlier in the tenancy, the Tenant did tell the Landlord that the other occupant had built a gate across the driveway, limiting her access to the rear of the property. The Landlord took no steps to remedy this. By failing to act, I am satisfied that the Landlord tacitly allowed the other occupant to restrict access to the carport area.

Based on these findings, I am satisfied that the Tenant has proven that she was unable to use the carport, which formed part of the premises because the other occupant, claiming a right through the Landlord, used the carport. I also satisfied that the Landlord tacitly allowed the other occupant to restrict access to the carport. He did not act in response to the Tenant’s notification that the other occupant had built a gate across the driveway, thus restricting her access to the carport and interrupting her quiet enjoyment of the premises.

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

The Tenant claims compensation of $3,575 for being unable to use the carport. She says that the carport had a value of $65 per week, and she arrived at the total by calculating that value over one year.

Taking a step back and assessing the justice of the case, I am not satisfied that the Tenant is entitled to any compensation, for two reasons.

First, the Landlord’s breach was technical at most. He did fail to act when made aware that the other occupant had built a gate across the driveway, which put him on notice that another occupant of the complex was inhibiting access to the carport. But he did not know that the Tenant had no access to the carport. The Tenant did not tell him that the other occupant was using the carport until near the end of the Tenancy.

Second, the Tenant has not proven that she suffered any loss by being unable to access or use the carport. The premises included one carpark, so the Tenant was entitled to the use of one carpark. The Tenant had unrestricted use of one carpark throughout her tenancy - the uncovered carpark at the front of the premises. In that sense, the Tenant got what she paid for – a carpark for her exclusive use.

Although it was a different carpark from the one that she should have had access to, the carpark she used was much more convenient than the carport. The carpark was at the front of the unit, beside the front steps. The carport was at the rear of the complex, much further away from her unit. Indeed, based on what I heard, if the Tenant had been given a choice as to which carpark she would have preferred to use, I think it likely she would have chosen the carpark at the front of the premises.

I therefore dismiss the Tenant’s claim for compensation. Did the Landlord fail to notify the Tenant that the premises were on the market for sale?

Where premises are on the market for sale, a landlord must provide written notification to the tenant. 2 The Tenant says that the Landlord listed the property for sale and provided no written notification.

The Landlord says that the property was not on the market for sale. He says that he was approached by another occupant, who wanted to buy his unit. He had not advertised the property for sale. The approach was unsolicited. The Landlord says that once he reached an agreement with that person, he immediately notified the Tenant, in writing.

I acknowledge that the Tenant felt unsettled and faced uncertainty as to the future of her tenancy once she was told the property was being sold. She also felt that she should have been given more notice of the sale. However, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has breached his responsibilities. The property was not on the market for sale. The approach to purchase the property was unsolicited, and the Landlord notified the Tenant immediately once an agreement had been reached.

The Tenant’s application on this ground is therefore dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee

Both parties have had a modicum of success. The Tenant has proven a technical breach of the Landlord’s responsibility to provide quiet enjoyment and the Landlord has successfully defended the compensation claim and the claim he failed to comply with his obligation to notify that the premises were on the market for sale.

I therefore grant both parties name suppression. I make no orders regarding the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306505 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306505 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions