What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4494122?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4494122?

Bathroom Ventilation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Content Of Tenancy Agreement: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Heating Standard: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Retaliatory Notice: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Water Overpayment: $99.66 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4494122?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4494122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9327553-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4494122?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4494122?

Bathroom Ventilation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Content Of Tenancy Agreement: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Heating Standard: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Retaliatory Notice: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Water Overpayment: $99.66 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4494122?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4494122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9327553-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Ewen Place, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4494122 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4494122 — net $1,416.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund overpayment	$153.29		Bond refund overpayment
Retaliatory notice		$650.00	Retaliatory notice
Gutter cleaning		$450.00	Gutter cleaning
Heating standard		$50.00	Heating standard
Water overpayment		$99.66	Water overpayment
Bathroom ventilation		$50.00	Bathroom ventilation
Content of tenancy agreement		$250.00	Content of tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$153.29	$1,570.10
Net award		$1,416.81
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,416.81

The property is in a rural setting surrounded by 2-acres of land. It forms part of an 8-acre farm. There is an outbuilding about 35 metres from the main house, not included in the tenancy, which also contains a small residential flat used by the landlord. The house itself occupies about 400 square metres and has 5 bedrooms.

The landlord lived in the property with his family for about 25 years without renting to anyone. More recently the landlord and his wife decided to live at their property in Northland.

The landlord asked a longstanding neighbour if he knew anyone looking for a house to rent. The neighbour knew the tenant’s father and put them in touch. The tenant and his family were looking for a safe and peaceful place to live after a difficult period.

The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a periodic tenancy from 1 March 2022. The rent was $1,000.00 per week and a bond of $4,000.00 was paid but not lodged. The tenancy started on 1 March 2022 and ended on 9 December 2022. Applications to Tribunal

On 7 February 2023 the tenant applied for compensation in the sum of $30,000.00.

On 10 May 2023 the landlord applied for compensation in the sum of $30,001.00.

Both parties attended the hearings on 1 June and 15 August 2023. Tenant’s Application Retaliatory notice

The tenant said he raised concerns about the property on 9 May 2022. On 20 May 2022 he emailed the landlord a link to the Healthy Homes Standards and requested that these be discussed. An hour later the landlord and his wife emailed a 63-day termination letter stating that they were planning to move back into the property.

The tenant says he then started looking for other accommodation, which caused stress and anxiety. Close to the eviction date he asked the landlord if he could stay, having not found anywhere suitable, and the termination notice was withdrawn.

The landlord said both he and his wife were intending to return to Auckland for medical treatment. The tenant asked for the notice to be extended when he could not find replacement accommodation. The landlord and his wife decided to live in their motorhome, on their part of the property, and allow the tenant to remain.

The email correspondence shows that the tenant first raised issues with water quality (which he thought could potentially be caused by build-up in the gutters), persistent animal odours in one room, and use of the fireplace in the lounge on 9 May 2022. The landlord and his wife replied that the gutters were cleaned just prior to the tenant moving in, they would arrange for carpet cleaners, and they had never used the fireplace.

On 18 May 2022 the landlord and his wife advised that they would address issues with the chimney by installing 2 wall-mounted panel heaters in both living areas. They would be coming down at the weekend to install the heating.

On 20 May 2022 at 9.09am the tenant confirmed an inspection on 23 May 2023 and attached a link to the healthy homes requirements for discussion at the inspection. At 10.11am the landlord replied with 63 days’ notice of termination of the tenancy. The landlord and his wife said that, due to unforeseen circumstances, they needed to move back into the house.

The timing of the termination notice, so soon after the healthy homes requirements were raised, strongly suggests the landlord’s motivation was at least partly retaliatory. While the landlord did move back to the outbuilding at the end of July 2022, for personal reasons his wife did not. However, the correspondence does show that the landlord and his wife were dealing with some medical issues. The effect of the retaliatory notice was also mitigated by the landlord’s later withdrawal of the notice.

I find that there was a breach of section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and that the breach was intentional. The landlord committed an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages of up to $6,500.00 may be awarded. This caused the tenant the distress of unexpectedly having to find new accommodation. On the other hand, the landlord had some legitimate reason for giving notice at that time and did ultimately allow the tenant to stay.

Having considered the factors in section 109(3) of the Act I find it would be just to award exemplary damages at the lower end of the range, and award $650.00. Gutters

The tenant said there was a noticeable odour to the tap water. They found vegetative growth in the gutters and pigeons in the roof that feeds the water- supply. As noted above, the tenant first raised an issue with water quality on 9 May 2022. In that email, the tenant queried whether this could be caused by build-up in the gutters. The tenant provided a video from 30 May 2022 which showed large clumps of grass poking out of the guttering around the downpipes.

The landlord said they supplied a new 5,000-gallon water tank which was half- filled with “town water” for the tenant. The landlord also said that the tenant was given the option of replenishing the water at his own expense or using the other, existing tank with “rural water” from the roof. The tenant had opted to use rural water, but if he had opted to use and pay for town water there would have been no problem.

The tenant ran out of water in July 2022. In text messages on 10 July 2022 the landlord’s wife explained that, after the tenant complained about water quality, the “rain tank” was left isolated so the tenant could buy water (the tenant accepted at the hearing that he had preferred tank water at that stage, because the gutters had not been cleaned). She advised that they could set up the system for rainwater (i.e., the tank connected to the roof catchment) but could not guarantee it would be the same quality as town water. The tenant responded that he would like to continue using rainwater.

It is difficult to determine whether there was a link between the condition of the guttering and the water quality issues raised by the tenant early in the tenancy. It is possible. However, the evidence does not objectively establish that the water from the roof catchment was of an unacceptable quality. The tenant had not used a water tank before. I note that the tenant expressed a preference for “rural water” over “town water” despite the earlier issues with water quality.

The landlord said the gutters and water tanks were cleaned just prior to the tenant’s occupancy. The tenant’s video gives a different impression in respect of the guttering. I find that the landlord was in breach of the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Cleaning the gutters is a landlord maintenance obligation and the condition of the guttering may have affected the water quality in the first few months of the tenancy. I award compensation of $450.00. Heating

The tenant complained about inadequate heating. He said there was a fireplace in the living room that could not be used because the landlord would not clean the chimney. When the tenant complained, the landlord provided 2 wall- mounted panel heaters (2 kW each). The heaters were provided in early June 2022.

The landlord referred to front and rear concrete panels, which absorb thermal heat from the sun and transfer it throughout the house. The landlord also submitted that the Healthy Homes Standards did not apply to the tenancy. The landlord said he told the tenant not to use the fireplace. His family had not used it in the 30 years they had owned the house.

I find that the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (the 2019 Regulations) applied to the tenancy from the 90 th day after commencement of the tenancy.

The 2019 Regulations provide that the main living room of the premises must be heated by one or more “qualifying heaters” which meet the “required heating capacity” for that room. A qualifying heater must have a heating capacity of at least 1.5kW. There is an online heating assessment tool on the Tenancy Services website for determining the required heating capacity of a living room.

If the landlord had been able to remedy the issues with the chimney, there would have been an operable closed fireplace in the premises which may have complied with the heating standard. The landlord also provided panel heaters. The tenant said did these not provide much heat and used a lot of power, but he chose only to install one of them. The tenant did acknowledge that the thermal panels provided radiant heat in the summer months.

I find that there was a breach of the 2019 Regulations and section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, because at the beginning of the tenancy there were no “qualifying heaters” in the living room, but the property was not without heating. The evidence from the tenant and other members of his family that the heating provided was inadequate and the house was cold is necessarily subjective. There was no objective evidence (such as use of the assessment tool) presented to show that the 2kW heater installed in the living room did not provide the required heating capacity. I award $50.00 to acknowledge the breach of the landlord’s obligations but do not consider that further compensation is appropriate. Power use

The tenant said there was initially no check meter for him to measure power consumption at the outbuilding. The tenant said his power bills were very high and submitted that landlords must include power in the rent unless there is a check meter.

The landlord said there was a check meter in the house, and it was explained to the tenant that he would have to work out the difference between the main meter reading and the check meter.

An invoice from an electrician says that the meter in the shed was disconnected and installed in the main house on 28 March 2022. Correspondence between the landlord’s wife and the tenant in March indicates that, so far as the landlord was concerned, there was by then a meter recording the tenant’s separate power use.

It was the landlord’s obligation to provide both the means for the tenant’s separate power use to be measured and to apportion the cost to ensure the tenant was only paying for his exclusive use. I can appreciate the tenant’s concern that he was also paying for power used by the landlord in the outbuildings. As he noted, there were multiple meters on one power account.

The tenant provided his power bills. These included readings from a power meter, CP05500:1, which the landlord acknowledged related to the tenancy address. The power bills also included another power meter, CN21500:1, which the landlord did not identify as being for the premises. I consider that this meter probably related to power at an outbuilding and the landlord indicated that the meters on the “Detail of current activity” document he provided were in the outbuilding.

I find that the power charges for CN21500:1 were the landlord’s responsibility. The power charges relating to this meter total $99.66 including GST. I award this amount as compensation to the tenant. Carpets

The tenant said the carpets had not been professionally cleaned when he moved in. One of the rooms he described as uninhabitable due to the smell of pets. The landlord had the carpets professionally cleaned after 3 months and then replaced the carpets in that room and the hallway. The tenant paid an additional $2,166.00 to also change the carpets in several other bedrooms.

The tenant’s brother gave evidence that one of the rooms smelled of animals. Before the carpets were changed it was not suitable for anyone to live in the room. He moved into the room the day after the carpets were changed.

The landlord said the carpets were 30 years old and put in when the house was built. They rug-doctored the whole house prior to the tenancy. He never noticed an odour in the room, which used to be his office, although he did notice an odour there about 3 months into the tenancy. He suggested the smell was caused by the tenant’s cat using the wardrobe as its toilet. The landlord had the carpets professionally cleaned. He said they changed all the carpets to placate the tenant and the tenant offered to pay the installation fee.

The correspondence shows that the carpets were cleaned in May 2022. The tenant notified the landlord on 14 June 2022 that there was still a smell in the middle bedroom following carpet cleaning. The carpets were replaced by the end of June 2022.

It is clear from the text messages in June 2022 that it was the tenant’s suggestion to pay for the carpeting of 3 other bedrooms at the same time, to ensure consistent age, colour, and quality.

There was an issue with the carpet in the middle bedroom during the tenancy. It is unclear if it was present from the start of the tenancy. The landlord addressed it when they were made aware of the problem by cleaning and then replacing the relevant carpets. I find there was no breach of the landlord’s obligations. Landlord occupancy

The tenant said the landlord moved into the outbuilding in July 2022 without notice or consultation. The tenant said this affected his quiet enjoyment and privacy. He also said the landlord was using his power while renovating the flat in the outbuilding.

The landlord said he was moving into part of his property that was not tenanted and therefore he had no need to notify or discuss the matter with the tenant.

I agree that the landlord was entitled to live in the outbuilding, which was not part of the tenanted property. I have addressed the power issue above. Tree maintenance

The tenant said a tree was damaged during a storm and a branch was left dangling precariously, causing a health and safety hazard. The tenant notified the landlord on 7 July 2022, but it took the landlord 2 months to remove the branch.

The landlord said the tenant was responsible for maintaining the gardens, but he had offered to pay for the cost of removing the tree.

The landlord attended the premises on 15 July 2023 and tried to fix the problem. He was unable to fully remove the tree, and the tenant submitted that, legally, a qualified arborist was required. The correspondence provided supports the landlord’s evidence that he agreed to pay for the tree’s removal, quoted and invoiced at $437.00.

The correspondence also shows that an arborist attended site on 23 August 2023 and provided a quote. On 30 August 2022 the landlord emailed the tenant confirming he would pay and asked the tenant to arrange a time for the work that suited the tenant. An arborist attended and cleared the tree on 9 September 2022.

Although the tenant said he had to arrange an arborist because the landlord was slow to remedy, I consider the landlord was sufficiently responsive. I find that there was no breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain. Bathroom ventilation

The tenant said there was no fan in the main bathroom, which created significant moisture and dampness. The tenant said he mentioned this at the start of the tenancy, but an electrician was not sent until August 2022.

The landlord said that as soon as he was informed of a ventilation problem a ventilation fan was installed.

In a text message on 7 July 2022 the landlord’s wife mentioned that they were looking into a fan for the bathroom. There is an invoice from an electrician which states that ducting to the outside was installed in the bathroom on 15 August 2022 and the heat/light/fan unit was tested and working.

The ventilation was installed after the Healthy Homes Standards applied to the tenancy (90 days after commencement), but the breach is minor and was remedied reasonably promptly. I award nominal damages of $50.00. Garage door opener

The tenant said he had to pay for an additional garage-door opener when his brother moved into the property ($64.00). The landlord damaged the original when he asked the landlord to code it, and he had to buy a replacement.

The landlord said it was the tenant’s responsibility to buy another remote control. His wife coded 2 remotes for the tenant and if the tenant had to purchase 2 controllers it was because the tenant had broken one of them.

In a text message on 7 July 2022, the tenant mentioned that his brother had moved in, and they needed another garage door opener. The tenant said they were happy to pay for the cost involved.

On 13 July 2022 the tenant said they had purchased a new garage door opener and asked for help programming them. The landlord’s wife responded by saying she had no idea how to do so.

The landlord was not obliged to provide a further garage opener for the tenant’s convenience only. It is not established on the available evidence that the landlord damaged the original garage opener. The evidence merely indicates that the landlord was unable to assist the tenant to code the replacement. Breach of privacy

The tenant said the landlord requested permission to remove some furniture belonging to the landlord from the main house. It was agreed that the landlord would come to the property the next morning with someone to help.

On the morning of 6 October 2022, before the tenant took his teenage children to school, one of the landlord’s neighbours entered the property without permission, looking for the landlord to help with removing the furniture. The tenant said the man (who I will call Mr H) was standing outside his teenage daughters’ bedroom. By the time he came out of his room, Mr H had left the house. The tenant said Mr H swore at him and tried to put his hands on him, and then got in his vehicle.

The landlord said Mr H arrived to assist with removing a piece of furniture from the house. Mr H was used to entering the house “without ceremony” when the landlord was living there. It was very unfortunate, but by accident Mr H overlooked the fact the house was now being occupied by the tenant.

In written submissions the landlord said he was in the outbuilding and heard noise. When he looked to see what was happening, he saw Mr H in “full backwards retreat” with a furious tenant “buried in his face”. The landlord said the arrangement was for Mr H to come and see him. He did not tell Mr H to go into the house, which he was accustomed to doing. Mr H wrongly assumed that the landlord was in the house. He gave oral evidence that he saw Mr H coming out of the house with the tenant in full pursuit. They had a pushing match on the lawn and Mr H verbally abused the tenant.

The Tribunal heard from a number of witnesses about this incident. One of the witnesses (a near-neighbour, who I will call Mr B) was at the outbuilding with the landlord. He saw the tenant come out of the house looking extremely upset and angry. Mr H went over to the tenant and reached out to put a hand on the tenant’s shoulder to console him; the tenant flung his arm away and asked not to be touched. Mr H, upset, went to his vehicle, and left.

In cross-examination, Mr B said that Mr H tried to put his hand on the tenant’s shoulder, who flung his arm back, but he could not see that the tenant made contact with Mr H.

The tenant’s younger teenage daughter (aged 16) gave evidence that she woke up to the sight of a strange man in the hallway. She could hear the tenant asking what the man was doing there. She also gave evidence that at one point, Mr H stormed up to her dad and roughly grabbed his arm; her dad brushed his arms off. The man also made racial slurs. Her evidence was that the tenant did not put his hands on Mr H or chase after him.

The tenant’s elder teenage daughter (aged 18) gave similar evidence. She heard an unfamiliar voice and heard her dad telling him to leave the property. The two of them walked out of the house and the man was running towards her dad, he put his hand on her dad’s arm. He then ran off to his car where he screamed derogatory terms. Her evidence was that the tenant did not put his hands on the man.

Section 38(1) of the Act provides that the tenant is entitled to 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.

Section 38(2) provides that 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 definition of “landlord” in the Act includes an agent of a landlord. An “agent” in relation to any person who is a landlord or tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant.

I accept that what happened on 6 October 2022 was a substantial interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. However, the issue is whether the landlord caused or permitted the breach and is therefore liable for what happened.

In my view, Mr H was not acting as the landlord’s agent when he intruded on the tenant’s privacy. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate the landlord in any way encouraged him to enter the property without permission. By entering he was not acting as the landlord’s agent in the landlord’s capacity as landlord. He was entering, if on the landlord’s behalf at all, as a friend who had agreed to help move some furniture. There was no entry for any purpose connected with the tenancy. Mr H did not enter the property to perform an inspection or maintenance or for any other reason deriving from the relationship of landlord and tenant. I find that the landlord is not responsible for Mr H’s unilateral actions.

I take the same view in respect of the trespass by another neighbour, an elderly gentleman who I will call Mr J. According to the tenant, Mr J came to the property several times and walked around the house, on one occasion loitering outside the tenant’s bedroom.

The first occasion was in July 2022. Mr J said he was looking for the landlord. The tenant explained to him that the landlord was no longer living at the property and that Mr J should go to the outbuilding. A few weeks later Mr J returned with his wife. The tenant had company and his privacy was disturbed. This time the tenant was more forceful in his request that Mr J leave. In evidence, Mr J could only remember one occasion of this kind.

The landlord said Mr J would come over to see him regularly when he was living there. He told Mr J several times that he had vacated, and that the property was rented out.

These incidents understandably caused the tenant distress. However, in my view Mr J was not acting as the landlord’s agent. He was not there for any reason connected with the tenancy. He was looking for the landlord who had lived at the property for several decades and it is likely he had forgotten what he had been told.

Finally, I am not satisfied that the landlord caused or permitted the breach by not changing the code for the security gate on the drive, or that doing so would necessarily have prevented Mr J from coming onto the premises. The landlord said changing the gate code would have blocked off the entire shared driveway, which was also used by visitors to the farm. Healthy Homes

The tenant said the property was not healthy homes compliant during the tenancy and no “statement of intent” was ever provided. The landlord submitted that the property was compliant.

The parties produced a 1-page tenancy agreement. The agreement does not include information required by section 13A of the Act relating to insulation and insurance. It also does not include a statement that the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards (section 13A(1CA)).

In failing to include a statement of compliance with the healthy homes standards, the landlord committed an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages of $750.00 may be awarded.

While appreciating that the landlord had not rented his property before, it was incumbent on him to comply with certain basic standards. Adoption of the precedent tenancy agreement published by Tenancy Services would have ensured provision of the information required by section 13A.

There is a public interest in ensuring that tenants sign up to tenancies with accurate information about important matters relating to the condition of the premises. Parliament has mandated that certain matters which affect living conditions must be disclosed. The detriment to the tenant was that, whether he appreciated his rights at the time or not, he was unable to make an informed decision when deciding to rent the premises.

The landlord said he was unaware of the healthy homes requirements, and they in fact provided a warm, beautiful home. But landlords need to be aware of their core obligations.

In my view the landlord has turned a blind eye to these disclosure requirements. The decision to use a 1-page tenancy agreement was an intentional act. After considering the factors in section 109(3) of the Act I find it would be just to award exemplary damages of $250.00. Bond lodgement and refund

The tenant said his bond was not lodged with Tenancy Services. The tenant was only refunded $439.00 on 31 January 2023 and expressed concerns about how this had been calculated.

The landlord said his wife was in charge of the rental agreement and bond. She told him that the bond had been lodged. The landlord only found out when the tenant was moving out, when he called Tenancy Services, that his wife had allegedly put the bond in her own bank account. He met the bond obligations at his own expense.

For the first few months of the tenancy, the landlord’s wife was clearly acting as the property manager and generally dealing with the daily administration of the tenancy. The definition of “landlord” in the Act includes, where appropriate, an agent of the landlord.

Failure to lodge a bond is an “unlawful act” which the Tribunal takes seriously (exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded). It can, as here, cause problems when the amount of bond to be refunded is disputed. Instead of having recourse to an independent third party holding their bond money on trust, the tenant has to seek restitution from the landlord as an unsecured creditor.

However, I have no reason not to take the landlord at his word. He was told the bond had been lodged by his agent when it had not. The landlord did not intentionally fail to lodge the bond. On the evidence, the landlord’s agent failed to do so after completing the bond lodgement form. I decline to award exemplary damages.

The tenancy ran for 40 weeks and 4 days. The total rent due was $40,571.43. According to the bank statements provided by the parties, the tenant paid $36,857.14 during the tenancy plus $4,000.00 for the bond. I have not included the sum paid by the tenant for carpet ($2,166.00) in the total. Therefore, $3,714.29 was due from the tenant for rent to the end of the tenancy ($40,571.43 minus $36,857.14).

A bond refund of $285.71 was payable to the tenant. By my calculation, the landlord refunded more of the bond than was necessary. There was an overpayment of $153.29 which I credit to the landlord. Landlord’s Application Interference with neighbours’ privacy

The landlord said that the tenant did nothing throughout his tenancy except complain about his rights being violated and his lack of privacy. The landlord said the tenant had disputes with neighbours. He referred to an incident when a neighbour asked the tenant to stop shooting his gun at a boundary fence the neighbour was repairing. The neighbour had to stop for fear of being injured. He also referred to the incident with Mr J, who had come over to see him only to be aggressively told to leave.

A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort of privacy of any person residing in the neighbourhood (Section 40(2)(e) of the Act).

I have already addressed the incidents involving Mr H and Mr J. Although I have found that the landlord is not liable for these events, I consider the tenant had reasonable justification to behave as he did towards these neighbours in the circumstances.

The neighbour involved in the shooting incident, who I will call Mr W, gave evidence that he was working on the fence on the boundary when he heard shots being fired from the property. He walked up the hill to make himself known and asked the shooter to take care not to fire in his direction. Mr W was concerned that the shooting might carry onto his property. He acknowledged that it was a fair distance to the next house from the line of shooting.

It was in fact the tenant’s brother (Mr RH) who was shooting an air-rifle that day. His evidence was that while shooting he spoke to a neighbour who was working on a fence, and who asked him not to shoot in his direction. Mr RH said he was not shooting in the neighbour’s direction and there were no buildings or homes in the line of fire.

Notwithstanding Mr W’s concerns, I am not satisfied that the tenant’s brother was interfering with the peace, comfort, or privacy of his neighbours through use of an air-rifle on the day in question. Mr W indicated he thought it was reckless for Mr RH to continue firing after his warning, but he did not say he asked Mr RH to stop shooting.

It is not established that Mr RH was shooting in Mr W’s direction and Mr W acknowledged that he had been shooting down the line of the tenant’s property (by which I assume he meant, not firing directly towards or into adjoining land). General damages

The landlord spoke about the effect on his mental health and marriage the problems at the tenancy had. He described the tenant as having a “high conflict” personality.

A tenant does not have a corresponding obligation not to harass or interfere with the peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord (as opposed to other tenants of the landlord, or people residing in the neighbourhood, to whom a duty is owed). Any remedies a landlord may have lie outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Even if a relevant breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act could be identified, there is a general principle that damages for injury to feelings cannot be awarded for breach of contract (Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488).

This principle does not apply in some contexts, including where the object of the contract is the provision of peace of mind or enjoyment or the prevention of distress. The Tribunal has typically construed tenancy agreements as contracts for business purposes so far as landlords are concerned. I do not consider that the object of a residential tenancy agreement, from a landlord’s perspective, is to provide enjoyment or peace of mind. It is a commercial bargain and landlords are effectively running a business.

For these reasons, the landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee

The tenant’s application has been partly successful. It is appropriate to award the filing fee.

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4494122 — net $1,416.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund overpayment	$153.29		Bond refund overpayment
Retaliatory notice		$650.00	Retaliatory notice
Gutter cleaning		$450.00	Gutter cleaning
Heating standard		$50.00	Heating standard
Water overpayment		$99.66	Water overpayment
Bathroom ventilation		$50.00	Bathroom ventilation
Content of tenancy agreement		$250.00	Content of tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$153.29	$1,570.10
Net award		$1,416.81
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,416.81