What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314019 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5314019?

Compensation: disappointment and inc…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss from breach of co…: $1,420.40 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power: $749.68 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314019?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13006999-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314019 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5314019?

Compensation: disappointment and inc…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss from breach of co…: $1,420.40 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power: $749.68 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314019?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13006999-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

126 Haisman Road, Makauri, RD 1, Gisborne 4071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5314019 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314019 — net $2,698.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss from breach of contract	$1,420.40	loss from breach of contract
Compensation: disappointment and inconvenience	$500.00	disappointment and inconvenience
Compensation: power	$749.68	power
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,698.08
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,698.08

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314019 — net $2,698.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss from breach of contract	$1,420.40	loss from breach of contract
Compensation: disappointment and inconvenience	$500.00	disappointment and inconvenience
Compensation: power	$749.68	power
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,698.08
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,698.08

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Co-Lab Pm Limited and Kurtis Michie must pay [The tenant/s] $2,698.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both tenants attended two hearings held by video conference. The property manager who managed this tenancy (JG) attended the first hearing for the landlord. The landlord (KM) attended and gave evidence at the second hearing.
This is a tenant application for compensation related to a fixed term tenancy which ended earlier than expected.
The tenants say the landlord breached and/or changed the agreement between them, that they never would have agreed to this tenancy under the changed conditions, and that this led to the early ending of the tenancy. They also say they were paying for power that they did not use (for another tenanted unit and farm sheds).
The issues are:- a. Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy relating to the pets? b. Have the tenants paid for power that they did not use? c. If the answer to either of these questions is yes, should the tenants be awarded compensation and if so, how much? Legal principles that may apply
A tenancy is a contract between landlord and tenant. In general, the parties can agree to anything that is not inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 1
If one party breaches or makes it clear they will breach an essential term of the contract, the innocent party is entitled to cancel the contract. 2
An innocent party can claim compensation to put them (as close as possible) back into the position they would have been in if the contract had not been breached and, sometimes, for emotional harm and other ‘hard-to-measure’ impacts of a breach.
There are also specific duties and obligations in the RTA. Two of these are relevant in this case:- a. A tenant’s right to “quiet enjoyment” of the premises which means to be able to live as they choose and undisturbed (if this is within the terms of the contract and law). A landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy; section 38 RTA; b. That a landlord is liable for outgoings (including power/electricity) for common facilities (such as shared sheds or garages) and a tenant is liable to pay for all outgoings that are “exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”; section 39 RTA. 1 Section 11 RTA. 2 See section 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. Background
The tenancy premises consist of a house and large garden located on a rural lifestyle block. Also at the address is another dwelling (described by the parties as a sleepout), farm sheds, and an adjacent paddock used by the landlord for his sheep.
The tenancy was intended to be for a fixed term starting on 21 March 2025 and ending on 22 March 2026.
The tenants were allowed to have two cats, four chickens, and two pigs, and to use the paddocks.
They moved in with their cats and chickens. Questions then arose about what would happen if the pigs got out and caused damage or complaints from neighbours. An email from the landlord’s agent said the pigs would be shot.
The tenants also found out their power bill included electricity used by the person living in the sleepout.
Efforts to resolve matters were unsuccessful and the parties agreed to end the tenancy early on 12 July 2025.

Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy relating to the pets?

The tenancy agreement signed by both parties on 13 March 2025 allowed pets 3 and use of the paddocks. 4
Two separate Pet Agreements were also signed. One related to two cats ([Pet’s names redacted]) who were allowed inside the premises.
The other related to two kune pigs (Pet’s names redacted) and four chickens (unnamed) all of whom were not allowed inside the premises.
The written terms made it clear that the tenants would be liable for any damage caused by any of the pets.
The Pet Agreement also included the below clause:-
Soon after they moved in, the tenants had a conversation with the landlord about the pigs and chickens. The landlord said he would prefer they were contained within a fenced pigsty area in one part of the paddock as this would keep them more securely contained. He explained there had been complaints 3 Clauses 59, 60, 61. 4 Clause 72. and cost involved in the past when a farm animal had escaped the paddock into a neighbour's property.
The tenants were unhappy about restraining the area within the paddock within which their animals could roam. They asked the agent to clarify the arrangement with the landlord.
The agent replied by email 5 , that “... the landlord’s conditions regarding your Kune pigs being allowed to roam freely on the property.” These were:-
The tenants emailed back the next day, saying:-
They also said they felt “blindsided” by the power sharing situation.
The tenants proposed a rent decrease and a change to a periodic tenancy to resolve what they felt was “paying a rent for less than described”, also saying they would not be bringing the pigs to the property.
There was a delay in the landlord’s response. In that time, the tenants communicated that they were looking for another property and would like early termination of the tenancy.
The landlord’s agent did eventually respond. 6 The email said:- 5 22 May 2025. 6 On 16 June 2025.
The email rejected the idea of a rent reduction or change from a fixed term to periodic tenancy.
After reviewing the evidence, my decision is that the landlord did breach the terms of the tenancy which allowed pets and use of the paddock.
The tenants entered into the tenancy on clear terms recorded in writing. Those terms included that they would be liable for any damage and that the animals must not cause a nuisance or complaints from neighbours.
There was no requirement in the written agreement that the animals be kept in the pigsty area. There was certainly no mention of any lethal consequences if the animals escaped.
The landlord says that there is no breach of the terms of the tenancy because the right to full use of the paddocks was reinstated and mention of shooting the pigs was retracted.
I disagree with this. Some types of breach cannot be easily remedied. 7 The response email does reinstate full use of the paddocks, but I find that it did not remove the effect of the earlier communicated threat to the pigs. Also, the retraction was late coming and used vague wording. 8
It was understandable that the tenants no longer felt it was safe to bring the pigs to the property. Anyone would take a threat to the life of their pet as a serious matter.
I am satisfied that being able to keep the pigs (safely) at the property was a term of the tenancy that was essential to the tenants. They had not been able to find a rental property where they could keep the pigs up until this tenancy.
In summary, the landlord breached an essential term of the tenancy, and this was not remedied. The tenants were entitled to cancel the contract.
The landlord accepted the cancellation (termination) of the fixed term contract without imposing the usual and agreed terms that the tenants pay related expenses and continue to be responsible for rent until new tenants were found. 9 7 Section 56 RTA anticipates that some breaches cannot be remedied. That section allows the non- breaching party to apply to the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy without allowing the breaching the party the opportunity to remedy the breach. 8 “He will not take any action himself as previously mentioned ...”
This was the right thing to do because the ending of the contract was caused by the landlord’s breach.
The breach of this essential term was also a breach of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment. Quiet enjoyment means the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord or the landlord’s agent. 10
The quality of the tenancy was significantly reduced by this breach.
The landlord breached the tenancy agreement and the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.

Have the tenants paid for power that they did not use?

The tenants say they found out after the tenancy started that the power account in their name included power supplied to the sleepout and to sheds used by the landlord.
They want compensation for power they have paid for but which they did not use.
The landlord has provided evidence from a registered electrician that:- a. There is one power supply to the property, which supplies power to:- i. The tenancy premises (the house lived in by the tenants); ii. The sleepout next to the house rented by the landlord to someone else (P); iii. Farm shed/s containing lights and power points and used by the landlord; iv. A water pump which serves the house, the sleepout and a farm trough in the paddock; and v. A septic pump which serves the house and the sleepout. b. There is a check meter that separately measures power used by the sleepout and water pump. 9 The tenancy agreement included these as clear terms and a separate Fixed Term Tenancy Acknowledgment Form was signed by the tenants. 10 This definition was endorsed by the District Court in Neems v Fraser [2025] NZDC 1222 at 39.
The evidence satisfies me that:- a. The tenants were not told before the tenancy started that the power account in their name included power used by the landlord and P, nor that there was a check meter; b. The tenants have paid for all of the power to the property; c. The check meter is in a shed which is accessible only by the landlord and P. Neither P nor the landlord read the check meter during the tenancy so there is no way of knowing how much power was used by the sleepout and water pump over that time. d. There is no way of measuring the power used by the farm sheds and septic pump as there is no separate check meter for these.
The failure of the landlord/agent to disclose the power arrangement to the tenants is a misrepresentation by omission. The tenants were led to believe the power account was only for power supplied to the house they lived in. The tenancy agreement simply says they are liable for power, gas, and water.
The tenants have paid for power that is not “exclusively attributable” to their use.
I consider the lack of disclosure of the arrangement to also be a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. They expressed this clearly in their email to the agent by saying they felt blindsided.
The landlord put them in the position, without their consent, of being contractually responsible to pay the electricity supplier for P’s power, and power to the farm sheds, and to then have to chase, or communicate with P (and the landlord) for payment of this. At the same time, the tenants had no way of measuring how much power P or the landlord used because they were not told about and did not have access to the check meter.
This is poor. The letter from P given in evidence that says he has always had an arrangement with the tenants of the main house to pay a share of the power misses the point.
The point is that if there is one power supply and more than one user of that power, it is the landlord’s responsibility to hold the power account and to separately measure the power exclusively used by a tenant.
Technically, the water pump and the septic pump are common facilities, so any power used by these is the landlord’s responsibility; s39(1) RTA.
Power used by the landlord’s sheds is also the landlord’s responsibility. Compensation for breach of the tenancy agreement pet clause and breach of quiet enjoyment
I accept the tenants have suffered loss because of the breach by the landlord of the pet clause and of their quiet enjoyment.
They say they never would have moved to these premises if they had known of the risk to their pet pigs or that they would not be able to roam freely in the paddocks. They incurred direct costs in moving to these premises.
I award compensation for direct losses of $1,420.40 as follows:- a. The difference between the rent the tenants paid at the previous property at which they could not keep their pigs ($650.00 per week) and at these premises ($730.00). This is $80.00 per week for the 16 weeks of this tenancy which is $1,280.00. b. Mileage for moving from their previous tenancy to this address. Evidence was supplied proving this is a distance of 20 kilometers. I agree that an estimate of three return trips (40 kilometres) is reasonable. This is 120 kilometers at the IRD 2024/25 mileage rate of $1.17 per kilometre which is $140.40. c. The tenants were able to borrow a trailer at no cost, so no compensation is awarded. d. Storage costs are unrelated to the breach so are not awarded.
I also award general damages or compensation for the disappointment and inconvenience suffered by the tenants from the breach.
Compensation for emotional loss or injury is recognised by the Tenancy Tribunal as appropriate in some circumstances because a residential tenancy is more than a commercial contract. It gives a right to a home and to quiet enjoyment (peace, comfort and privacy). 11
In the tenants’ words: “It was all for nothing. We signed up to be able to live with our animals alongside us and that’s not what we got.”
It is difficult to quantify this type of loss. It is relevant to consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach. 12
I consider this case to be in the lower range of emotional harm damages because the pigs were not yet at the property when the threat was made (so were not in danger of being harmed) and because the landlord did make efforts to retract or remedy the breach. This included accepting termination of the contract without penalty. 11 For example see Tenant v Kumar [2022] NZTT 4311712, 4314460. 12 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993.
The main effect of the breach is remedied by the compensation awarded for the direct costs incurred by the tenants in moving to this property. I award an additional $500.00 in general compensation. 13 Compensation for power costs
The tenants provided copies of power bills which prove they have paid $1,301.13 for power to the tenancy premises, the sleepout, the landlord’s sheds and the two pumps, as below:- DatesFixed costs 14 Total invoice 23/3/25 – 6/5/25$77.80$390.82 7/5/25 – 6/6/25$55.52$391.03 7/6/25 – 6/7/25$54.12$447.48 7/7/25 – 12/7 25$10.72$71.48 Total$198.24$1,301.13
There is no way to know how much power was used by the sleepout, the landlord’s sheds and the two pumps because the check meter was not used and there is no separate meter for the sheds or pumps.
I must do my best to assess what is fair.
The main house where the tenants lived is larger than the sleepout but the hot water in the house is gas heated whereas the sleepout is electrically heated. I have no information about the heaters in the two dwellings. The landlord’s sheds have lights and power points. The landlord said there was nothing plugged in.
I award compensation of $749.68 calculated as below:- a. $198.24 for the fixed costs as the power account should have been in the landlord’s name in which case he is responsible for costs that continue whether or not there is a tenant; b. $551.44 15 being 50% of the kilowatt or costs for consumption or use of power. I accept that the main house is larger but as it uses gas hot water 13 An award in the range of $200.00 to $2,000.00 is suggested for lower-level harm in Tenant v Ezy Rentals NZ Limited [2022] NZTT 4323927 at paragraphs 19 to 23. 14 Daily charge plus EA levy (Electricity Authority) 15 Total invoices $1,301.13 minus fixed costs $198.24 = $1,102.89 in total kilowatt or consumption cost heating and there is no other way to assess usage, I have decided that this is the fairest way to make sure the tenants have not paid for power used by P or the landlord. Filing fee and suppression of names
The tenants have been substantially successful, so I award the filing fee.
A party that is wholly or substantially successful in proceedings is entitled to suppression of name on application unless publication is in the public interest or justified because of the party’s conduct or other circumstances of the case; s95A RTA. I suppress the tenants’ names.
The breaches have been proven and the issue with management of the power supply does need to be public to ensure it is remedied. I do not suppress the landlord/agent names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314019 — Tenancy dispute at 126 Haisman Road, Makauri, RD 1, Gisborne 4071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314019 — Tenancy dispute at 126 Haisman Road, Makauri, RD 1, Gisborne 4071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy relating to the pets?

Have the tenants paid for power that they did not use?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy relating to the pets?

Have the tenants paid for power that they did not use?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions