What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336641 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 5336641?

Compensation: Quiet enjoyment (s 38/…: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Electricity: $2,295.97 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336641?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12717850-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336641 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 5336641?

Compensation: Quiet enjoyment (s 38/…: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Electricity: $2,295.97 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336641?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12717850-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

134 Lansdowne Road, Richmond, RD 1, Richmond 7081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336641 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336641 — net $167.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Electricity	$2,295.97		Electricity
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment (s 38/s 45		$2,100.00	Quiet enjoyment (s 38/s 45
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,295.97	$2,128.00
Net award	$167.97
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$167.97

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336641 — net $167.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Electricity	$2,295.97		Electricity
Compensation: Quiet enjoyment (s 38/s 45		$2,100.00	Quiet enjoyment (s 38/s 45
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,295.97	$2,128.00
Net award	$167.97
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$167.97

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay The Rent Shop Ltd As The Agent For Cameron Riddoch & Christine Coutand $167.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Ltd As The Agent For Cameron Riddoch & Christine Coutand: $167.97 [The tenant/s]: $3,432.03

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Georgina Lupton appeared for the landlord. Early in the hearing it became apparent the owners had some direct engagement with this tenancy, and other tenancies at the property. I queried this with Ms Lupton who confirmed her principals were aware of the claims, away overseas, and intended Ms Lupton represent them at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for outgoings and compensation via the bond.
The tenant applied for the return of their bond and compensation.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
This tenancy formed as a fixed-term tenancy that commenced 14 March 2025. It ended before the full term after the tenants were released from the term.
The premises comprised a semi-rural property with other dwellings, one cottage and one house bus/caravan. A large workshop/shed was also present, outside of this tenancy and for the use of the owners.
A caravan for occasional owner use was placed within the property. This was occupied by the owner for an approximate ten-day period at the start of the tenancy. Previously unaware of her status, the owner and tenant spent some time together while she resided in the caravan.
No clear demarcation of the respective boundaries was apparent.
The premises was a large 6-bedroom home with a swimming pool.

Are the tenant liable for electricity costs?

The landlord sought $2,295.97 for outstanding electricity costs. The agent had told the tenants they would receive a monthly invoice. The property has two connections. The one servicing the premises and cottage split consumption across two meters, one at each premises. The owner retained the electricity account in its name, with the intention of having its accountant apportion the costs across both premises. That invoice would be provided to the property manager for presenting to the tenants.
The process was flawed. No invoices were presented to the tenants until after the tenancy. The single page invoice was a single cost line item with no consumption information that might have informed the tenant use of electricity during the tenancy.
A final issue for the tenants was concern regarding potential non-exclusive use, primarily the swimming pool. Subsequent to the hearing the landlord provided electrician confirmation the swimming pool electrical devices were on a separate meter. The surrounding lights remained on this meter. This is as expected and as discussed at the hearing.
While in relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
The landlord had said electricity invoices would be provided monthly. They were not. Ms Lupton submitted the delay was caused by the owner’s agent/accountant. That is of not real bearing as to the impact of any unacceptable delay in timely presentment of invoice/consumption data.
The tenants accepted a reasonability for the cost of their electricity used. The delay does not appear to have disadvantaged them by reducing their ability to manage the account and/or consumption. No spike is evident that suggests a disadvantage to them through unawareness of rouge electricity use (eg, excessive hot water heating due to a broken thermostat).
While the failure is proven, I confirm the electricity costs of $2,295.97 as due and award that to the landlord.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord claims the tenants left the carpet in need of commercial cleaning.
An invoice for $814.00 was provided. It recorded two tasks, the first being a full steam clean of the premises at $433.00 (ex GST) and a flea treatment at $274.00 (ex GST)
This tenancy lasted just over 21 weeks. The tenants had a dog, as had previous tenants.
The exit inspection of the tenancy prior identified an “extremely pungent dog smell” downstairs. The file note below recounts steps taken. The tenant engagement with Chem Dry was not evidenced by any invoice. Regardless, the effectiveness of the treatment, or a deeper issue with the carpeted area is not considered to have resolved any legacy issues.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord had the entire house carpeted areas steam cleaned and also had a flea treatment performed.
The tenants claim they left the carpet in better condition than it was at commencement.
Carpet smell is difficult to evidence but given the questionable legacy state of the downstairs carpet at commencement, and the short 22-week tenure of this tenancy, I do not find the landlord has evidenced any real, rather than philosophical, need for the carpet treatment or flea treatment undertaken and I dismiss this claim. The tenant application
The tenants claim the landlord failed to ensure their quiet enjoyment and failed to maintain/present the premises. Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenants right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy?
The tenants claimed the landlord had failed to meet its obligations under s 38 RTA. Section 38 requires (in part): (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) 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.
The decision of the District Court in Cavanagh v Kainga Ora [2022] NZDC 7003 makes it clear that section 38(2) does not apply in this type of situation. There, Judge Neave endorsed and followed the earlier decision of the District Court in Howard v Housing NZ Corporation [2017] NZDC 4742 in which the Court noted: “[21] [The tenant’s] argument must be to the effect that the landlord was in breach of subsection (2) by permitting interference with his reasonable peace, comfort or privacy by failing to take appropriate measures against [the other tenant’s] parents to ensure that his interference with [the tenant’s] reasonable peace comfort or privacy ceased. [22] In my view, subsection (2) cannot be interpreted in that way. Section 38 is directed to ensuring that the landlord, or any person standing in the stead of the landlord, such as for instance a beneficiary of a trust owning the subject property, shall not interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. [23] The section is directed to acts by or on behalf of the landlord which interfere with that quiet enjoyment. [24] Section 45 on the other hand creates an obligation on the landlord to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants interferes with the quiet enjoyment of a tenant’s use of the premises. There is a clear distinction between actions by the landlord personally which are prescribed by s.38 and actions of the landlord's other tenants which are prescribed by section 45(1)(e). The legislature clearly did not intend that a failure of a landlord to ensure that the other tenants did not interfere with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment amounted to an unlawful Act”
As in the Cavanagh case, the issue here is really whether the landlord breached its obligation under s.45(1)(e) to, “take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.”
The issue for the tenants was the behaviour of another tenant at the property address (within view but outside the premises boundary), as well as some associates of his. I heard this tenant lived in a house bus and shared the driveway access. The tenants submitted they had been told the person resided there only occasionally. After commencement it appears he resided permanently. The tenants stated this was confirmed by the owner to them.
The arrangement with that tenant was not under the agency (the arrangement was with the owner directly) although the agency of the Cottage was with The Rent Shop.
Ms Lupton stated she advised the owners that they had responsibilities under s 45(1)(e) RTA. 1 Any subsequent attention by the owners was not evidenced but it appears a notice to that tenant regarding the behaviour of his dog was issued. Beyond that, all that is known is that the tenant left during June. He did revisit the property as his mother still resided in the Cottage. Any of his alleged anti- social actions there bound the agent of the Cottage tenancy to action, as well as the owner. He was also the subject of a complaint to the police regarding his actions outside the property (but after his vacate).
The tenant’s dog was problematic, and the premises had no fencing to stop its entry when unrestrained, even into the house. I heard from the tenants of the dog’s aggressive behaviour around the premises, causing distress to their children and limiting their playing outside.
Based on the tenant recounting, there appears to have been some confused messaging between the owner and agent as to how occupation and activities at the property were intended. Any management or advice of steps being taken by the owner regarding that tenant, and his adverse impact on this tenancy was not communicated to the tenants. The attitude of the agent was that it was not any issue for them to be involved with. This is disappointing given their agency and relationship with the owners and the previous advice to them regarding their statutory obligations. The offer of a break in the fixed-term as a resolution is a sub-optimal offering for tenants who had a right to expect action on the issues as recounted. 1 I have not had to determine if the caravan was a residential tenancy and tenanted as defined in the RTA. Regardless, the landlord was in control of any licence to occupy as granted.
I consider the tenants have established a failure of the landlord to take appropriate steps regarding the behaviours of the other tenant.

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and to and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord should investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants sought compensation for the loss of amenity of an oven for approximately 8 days. After two weeks into the tenancy the tenants sought to use the oven for the first time and discovered it was not working (there was a separate gas hob). On 31 March they notified the landlord and that same day a job was raised. The actual repair take several visits as it was a combo electric and gas oven. The tenant claim for $280.00 is dismissed. The loss of the oven for use for a short period while it was repaired was an inconvenience but given it was not in frequent use, and the landlord acted promptly I do not consider any grounds for compensation exist.
The tenants also claimed the entry condition of the premises was poor. They stated the carpet was dirty and required further cleaning by them and the garden were overgrown. They sought $400.00 compensation for the claimed failure to provide a “clean, habitable property”.
They weeded and incurred some costs in weed mat/bark ($200.00). These remedial or improvements efforts were instigated unilaterally and not raised with the landlord prior.
The tenants also sought compensation for vet bills ($400.00) after they suspected the other tenant’s dog injured their cat.
The tenants also sought $200.00 compensation for stress over unfair charges (electricity) and $200.00 for the landlord’s “failure to act in good faith”.
The additional claims for compensation are all dismissed as unproven. Even if successful, the actual losses incurred as claimed (where appropriate) are not evidenced through actual invoices. Compensation
Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
The accommodation arrangements at this property were confused. Of the three, house, cottage, and caravan – two were under agency, the caravan not. That confusion existed from the start with inconsistent information to the tenants when they contemplated the tenancy and continued into the tenancy. The lack of clear and physical boundaries between premises did not help. The lack of any meaningful fencing around the premises, and the anti-social behaviours of the caravan tenant, meant the tenants ability to enjoy the tenancy to its fullest potential was diminished.
The root cause and responsibility of what appears to have been a tardy or lack of action to what are accepted as valid complaints by the tenants regarding the caravan tenant and his activities.
The result was a desire of the tenants to break the fixed-term tenancy. The tenants desire for this break appears to have other motivations. No related cost recovery by the landlord is factored.
However, the tenants incurred cost and effort to settle into what they reasonably expected to be a longer tenancy in a large family home, without adverse neighbouring impacts as experienced. The landlords have some accountability for these impacts and duration.
Balancing the respective submissions and evidence, I have determined compensation at an average rate of $100 per week over the tenancy as appropriate (recognising the impacts on the tenant were not constant). Using 21 weeks, this equates to final tenant compensation of $2,100.00. This is ordered. Filing fee
Because [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] have substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have been substantially successful across both applications, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336641 — Tenancy dispute at 134 Lansdowne Road, Richmond, RD 1, Richmond 7081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336641 — Tenancy dispute at 134 Lansdowne Road, Richmond, RD 1, Richmond 7081

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenant liable for electricity costs?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenant liable for electricity costs?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions