What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452328 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5452328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452328?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13852909-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452328 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5452328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452328?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13852909-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 8 Gurr Place, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452328 — State of repair

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In an Order dated 25 May 2026, the Tribunal required the tenant to provide a statement setting out his claims, the basis for them and his record of the events giving rise to his claim and any further evidence he intended to rely in support of his claims. The tenant did not provide a statement or any further evidence.
At the hearing the tenant confirmed with the Tribunal that his claims were for compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Damage caused to his vehicle when a branch fell on it. b. The landlord’s failure to maintain the premises by removing fallen trees. c. Breach of his right to quiet enjoyment by the landlord and its contractor’s unlawful entry to the property and lack of the full use and enjoyment of the premises because of rubbish left behind on the premises and damage to the ground surface caused by the landlord’s contractor. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that each of his claims is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reasons for its decisions. The tenant’s evidence
The tenant provided the following evidence at the hearing: a. During a storm over the Christmas holiday period, branches fell off a dead tree at the premises and one branch hit his ute. He called into the office of the landlord’s property manager (PM) on 10 January 2026 and advised her that this had happened and that his vehicle was damaged. He emailed her photographs of the tree on the same day. b. By email on 12 January 2026 the PM asked the tenant for “clear photos of the damage to your vehicle, along with details of what damage has been caused.” c. The tenant sent an email on 22 January 2026 advising “My truck has issues since the last time that exact tree dropped a large limb on the bonnet. I can’t currently afford a diagnosis on my vehicle but all I know is that since the tree impacted it, it’s caused some damage as the truck doesn’t work now.” d. On 22 January 2026 the PM replied: “In relation to your vehicle, you have advised that a tree branch fell and caused damage to your truck to the extent that it is no longer operational. I have previously requested photos of the damage, however these have not been received. If you are seeking any form of compensation for the alleged damage, we will require evidence, including a written report from a reputable mechanic confirming the cause and the extent of the damage.” e. At the hearing the tenant claimed that a branch fell on the side of his truck and knocked it. He believes this damaged the turbo unit. f. On 23 January 2026 the tenant issued a 14-day notice to the landlord to “remove both trees”, unblock a drain and remedy a gap under the front door. g. At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that the drain and the draught were remedied promptly and are not part of his application. h. The PM gave 48-hours’ notice that a contractor would be coming to the property on 29 or 30 January 2026 for the required tree work. The notice confirmed that a digger would be accessing the side of the property during this work. i. The landlord’s contractor turned up at the property unannounced on 2 February 2026. An altercation occurred which greatly upset the tenant. j. On 19 February 2026 the tenant found the contractor and one of the landlords outside at the property. Another altercation occurred which again caused the tenant distress. k. On 19 February 2026 the tenant telephoned the PM to complain about the presence of the landlord and contractor at the property and to complain about the state of the outdoors area which had not been cleaned up. The tenant claimed that the outdoor area was left in an uneven, muddy and rough state as a result of the contractor’s works. Parts of a barbed wire fence and an area of bamboo was left exposed. Because all the branches and debris had not been removed, it caused him difficulty manoeuvring his vehicle. l. He gave 21-days’ notice of termination by email to the PM on 2 April 2026 stating that his peace and quiet enjoyment had been “neglected” by the PM and the landlord and that the tree work had still not been completed as “the trees that are still in a messy pile on the lawn”. m. He showed a brief video to the Tribunal of the outside of the property showing its condition at the end of the tenancy. He claimed that the area was unsafe due to the presence of barbed wire, bamboo, branches, an uneven surface and mud. The landlord’s evidence
The PM provided the following evidence: a. The premises are part of an old house which is divided into four separate units. All the outside area was for the shared use of all the tenants. The grounds maintenance was the landlord’s responsibility. b. The work scheduled for 29 or 30 January 2026 could not be completed because of the weather. The landlord instructed the contractor to start work on 2 February 2026. As far as she was aware, the tenant was not advised that the contractor would be coming on that date. c. Both dead trees were removed by the contractor, one completely but the stump remained of the other. She provided a report from an arborist confirming that the stump was safe. d. She provided photographs of the outside area showing the state of the outdoor area including location of the tree material that required removal. The PM confirmed that it was moved well away from the tenant’s property as the section was large and did not impede his reasonable use of the shared area. e. On 4 February 2026 she emailed the tenant to advise: “Regarding the recent tree removal, please be aware that large machinery and the wet weather yesterday have naturally caused some damage to the exterior grounds. The lawns are the landlord’s responsibility, and while we are aware of the current condition, tidying will occur in due course and not immediately. The trees have been cut down and piled to the side of the property to avoid impacting tenant’s use. This resolves the previous breach regarding tree removal.” The tenant responded with his thanks. f. A declaration from the landlord confirmed that: i. He came to the premises on 19 February 2026 with his contractor to view and discuss the further work needed. ii. On 4 April 2026 the landlords came to the property to remove a stove from one of the other flats and encountered the tenant who yelled at them. g. The PM’s file notes from a routine property inspection on 5 March 2026 confirming that in the context of his having made an application to the Tribunal for compensation, the tenant had complained about the boundary fence of barbed wire and corrugated iron constituting a hazard, “sticks and debris on the section which he stated someone could impale themselves on”, the section being “a mess” and the existing tree stump being unsafe. h. An aerial photograph of the property together with a number of photographs of the outdoor area, including the stump, the state of the fence, the lawn and the timber stacked to be removed from the premises. i. A log of incidents recorded by her office, her own contemporaneous file notes, the statements of the landlords and his contractor which confirmed that they all felt unsafe at the property with the tenant because of his behaviour. The landlord’s contractor would not return to complete the tidying necessary because of the tenant’s behaviour. As the tenant had given notice, the landlord waited until he had vacated before completing the tidying up. Discussion and decision: damage to truck
The tenant has not provided any evidence of the damage caused to his vehicle or that it was caused by a falling branch on the premises. The tenant claimed at the hearing that a branch struck the side of his truck but in the email to the PM he claims it struck his bonnet. There is no evidence in the photographs of his truck that there was any damage to the bonnet or any of its sides which one could reasonably expect if the force of the falling branch were to have damaged the turbo unit. Nor did the tenant provide any evidence which quantified or proved his loss.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for damage to his truck is dismissed. Discussion and decision: failure to maintain
The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. What timeframe is reasonable depends on the gravity of the problem.
In this case, the tenant first complained of damage to his truck on 10 January 2026 and issued a 14-day notice on 23 January 2026. The work was completed on 2 February 2026. In the circumstances, this period is reasonable. The tenant has not given any evidence that he remained in serious or further danger from the trees. A period of just over three weeks from notification of the damage and a week from the issuing of the breach letter is not unreasonable.
The tenant’s notice asked the landlord to remove two trees from the premises. The landlord’s evidence is that it took such steps as it believed was necessary to remove any danger from the trees. The tenant has not provided any evidence that the trees or the stump remained a danger after 2 February 2026 when the landlord’s contractor undertook the first day’s work. The landlord does not have to simply do what the tenant asks in a breach letter. The landlord’s obligation is to comply with its legal obligations under the RTA. There is no evidence that it did not do so.
The tenant’s claim for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises is dismissed. Discussion and decision: breach of quiet enjoyment/unlawful entry
The tenant claimed at the hearing that the landlord and its contractor were not allowed to come onto the property without first giving the required notice under section 48 RTA.
As discussed at the hearing, a landlord is not required to give any notice to a tenant where the landlord does not enter inside the property. Under section 48 RTA, the term “premises” does not include land or facilities when referring to the landlord’s right of entry. This means the restrictions and notice requirements in section 48 apply to the dwelling itself, not to shared land or common facilities.
The tenant did not claim that the landlord went inside his dwelling and there is no evidence that the landlord or its contractor did so. The area accessed to fell the trees was a common area shared with the other tenants of the house.
The landlord and its contractor attended the premises for a proper purpose: on the first occasion, the removal of trees at the tenant’s request; on the second, to meet to determine the further steps required; and lastly, the removal of a stove from another flat. There is no suggestion in any of the evidence that the access was gained to harass the tenant or that the visits were for anything but a proper purpose.
Both parties submitted a significant amount of written and verbal evidence regarding the altercations which took place between the tenant, the landlords and its contractor. The substance of the tenant’s claims did not require an examination of these events in detail. Both parties agreed that they took place. Each made it clear that the other party was to blame. The Tribunal does not consider it necessary to record the details of those altercations in this decision or determine blame.
As discussed at the hearing, these events are background to the tenant’s claims but are not essential to them. The tenant’s claims were about the legality of the landlord and its contractor accessing the property and the works required in relation to the trees. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the tenant was surprised and upset by the unexpected appearance of the landlord and their contractor, it is satisfied on the evidence before it that the landlord has not breached any legal obligation which would entitle the tenant to compensation or exemplary damages.
The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment included a claim that because the premises were left in an untidy and, allegedly, unsafe state after the contractor finished work on 2 February 2026, he was denied the enjoyment of the common area outside because it was untidy, unsafe and dangerous, and made it difficult for him to manoeuvre his vehicle.
Having examined the photographic evidence the Tribunal is not persuaded that the outside area was more unsafe or dangerous after the removal of the trees. The photographs show that the area required further tidying, the removal of the tree rubbish and the levelling of the lawn. The PM accepted this but also claimed that because of the tenant’s attitude and behaviour, well documented in the PM’s notes, the landlord’s contractor would not return to the premises and the levelling work could not be completed because of wet weather. Once the tenant gave notice, it was reasonable to defer completion of these works until the tenant had vacated the premises.
There is no evidence that the area for the parking and manoeuvring of the tenant’s vehicle was any smaller after the tree work was completed. The fact that the tenant drove a larger vehicle than his truck does not impose on the landlord any responsibility to provide the tenant with a larger manoeuvring area.
The tenant’s claim for breach of his quiet enjoyment by the landlord and its contractor is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452328 — State of repair at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 8 Gurr Place, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452328 — State of repair at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 8 Gurr Place, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions