What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4546457?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services is to make a split payment of the Bond to the parties, as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 4546457?

HHS – Landlord’S Breach Of Ventilati…: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Landlord’S Storage Costs: $1,528.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Amenity/Power Consumption –…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Utility – Garage Storage: $410.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546457?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9274149-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4546457?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services is to make a split payment of the Bond to the parties, as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 4546457?

HHS – Landlord’S Breach Of Ventilati…: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Landlord’S Storage Costs: $1,528.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Amenity/Power Consumption –…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Utility – Garage Storage: $410.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546457?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9274149-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Western Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4546457 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4546457 — net $198.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Landlord’s Storage Costs	$1,528.00		Landlord’s Storage Costs
Loss of Amenity/Power Consumption – Hole in		$200.00	Loss of Amenity/Power Consumption – Hole in
Loss of Utility – Garage Storage		$410.00	Loss of Utility – Garage Storage
HHS – Landlord’s Breach of Ventilation Standards		$720.00	HHS – Landlord’s Breach of Ventilation Standards
Total award	$1,528.00	$1,330.00
Net award	$198.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$198.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4546457 — net $198.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Landlord’s Storage Costs	$1,528.00		Landlord’s Storage Costs
Loss of Amenity/Power Consumption – Hole in		$200.00	Loss of Amenity/Power Consumption – Hole in
Loss of Utility – Garage Storage		$410.00	Loss of Utility – Garage Storage
HHS – Landlord’s Breach of Ventilation Standards		$720.00	HHS – Landlord’s Breach of Ventilation Standards
Total award	$1,528.00	$1,330.00
Net award	$198.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$198.00

Order

Bond Services is to make a split payment of the Bond to the parties, as follows:

Reasons

There were two hearings, which both parties attended.
The Tenant is seeking relief for alleged breaches by the Landlord of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The Landlord has in turn cross-claimed for compensation due to losses.
I have had regard to the parties’ previous proceedings where relevant and provide a summary for context below. Termination and Possession
On 25 January 2023, the Tribunal awarded Craig Thompson possession of the premises at 23 Western Road.
Both parties presented their claims during that hearing, the tenant arguing that the Landlord’s termination notice was retaliatory or baseless, while the Landlord claimed the premises were needed for his personal residence and a valid termination notice was given pursuant to s 51 of the Act.
Although the tenant listed several grievances, including incidents of alleged intimidation and harassment, the adjudicator found that the timing and evidence did not support these claims as reasons for the notice.
A pivotal piece of evidence was a conversation between the landlord and his former partner, which, despite containing some regrettable comments, did not prove the eviction was falsely motivated.
Ultimately, the adjudicator ruled that the notice was valid, given with the genuine intention of the landlord wanting to reclaim and live in his property, and was not in retaliation. A possession order was granted, although the Tenant was given an additional four weeks to vacate by the Landlord. Rehearing
The Tenant applied for a rehearing. A rehearing consideration was held, which both parties attended.
The rehearing application was dismissed, and the stay of proceedings set on 3 February 2023 was revoked. The initial order for possession made on 25 January 2023 remained in effect.
The Tenant raised several arguments in support of his rehearing application, including difficulty finding new accommodation, support from the co-owner, miscarriage of justice, and perceived inequities in the original hearing.
The Tribunal assessed these claims against the criteria for a rehearing based on the Residential Tenancies Act and relevant precedents.
It was determined that many of the Tenant’s points were not pertinent or had been previously addressed. Even if there were any mistakes in assessing evidence, this would not merit a rehearing.
The Landlord consented to an adjustment of the possession date to 24 February 2023. Landlord’s Change of Position
During the hearing, the Landlord, notably in pain from a leg injury, verbally expressed a desire to abandon his claims and to ‘give’ the Tenant his bond back. He noted that his claims were in response to seeing the nature and quantum of the Tenant’s initial complaint.
The Landlord made this statement towards the end of hearing the Tenant’s application. The Tenant's grievances were fully addressed. While both parties acknowledged their shortcomings, I discerned the Landlord had committed certain violations under the Residential Tenancies Act. The Landlord acknowledged this was likely so and told me there were things he probably should have done better but that the Tenant could have his bond back and he would ‘leave it there’.
The Tenant wanted me to finally determine the matter. I proceeded to consider the Landlord’s cross application though I truncated the hearing process, mindful of the Landlord’s pain and his emphasis on completing the hearing quickly. He had a medical appointment in Tauranga later that afternoon.
The Tenant then interjected claiming the Landlord had forfeited his right to his claims. The Tenant also mentioned comments from a previous Tenancy Adjudicator which implied claims could not be filed as a mere reactionary response. I clarified to the Tenant the importance of procedural fairness, emphasising that the timing of the claims does not overshadow their merit. I have provided more detailed reasoning below, for the Tenant’s benefit.
Landlord's Right to Claims: The Landlord has a legal right to file counterclaims. Procedural fairness and natural justice dictate that both parties be heard.
Timing of Claims: The legitimacy of the Landlord’s claims stands on their merit, not on when they were introduced or their motive.
Abandonment of Claims: Though the Landlord verbally indicated a willingness to abandon his claims, this does not automatically result in their formal withdrawal. Unless explicitly withdrawn, in terms which are sufficiently clear, the Landlord’s claims remain active. The Landlord did not say the Tenant could have all he was asking for, and I consider the Landlord, who was in pain and wanted the hearing to end, could not have intended to forgo a possible set-off against any successful award against him. I doubt he turned his mind to this eventuality.
I have had regard to the context in which the Landlord made his comments. The Landlord was in pain, the hearing had already been underway for two hours (time which the Landlord spent sitting in pain, in addition to the initial pre-hearing wait time). The Landlord wanted the hearing to be over with and was agreeable to the Tenant getting his bond back. This was not the unequivocal abandonment of claim the Tenant claims it was, because the Landlord, who showed visible signs of discomfort, may have spoken intemperately.
Prior Adjudicator’s Input: A possible misunderstanding from the Tenant’s side concerning past advice does not impede the Landlord's claims. Their validity remains paramount. I do not have access to the previous adjudicator’s comments, and I am of course aware that statements can, when removed from their proper context, be misconstrued.
Interpersonal Dynamics: The evident goodwill between the parties was commendable but did not, in the end, diminish the essence of their claims which, at the Tenant’s request, required formal, legal determination.
Moral Standpoint: The Tenant sees the Landlord's actions in resiling from his earlier position of abandonment of all claims as morally wrong. I disagree.
While the morality of a Landlord bringing reactionary claims and then is subjective and hinges on the intentions behind such actions, valid claims presented in good faith are both legally and morally defensible.
The Tenant may question whether the Landlord has brought his claim in good faith. The Tenant is reminded of the adversarial nature of the legal proceedings it initiated.
The decision to pursue a claim in a legal setting is a strategic one, often influenced by a myriad of factors, including the strength of one’s claim, the potential for resolution outside of formal channels, and the perceived costs and benefits of formal adjudication.
When a Tenant decides to bring forward valid claims, they themselves are taken to have considered these factors before initiating the legal process which is provided to determine, generally speaking, a winner and a loser.
The winner is the party who is found to have succeeded (or succeeded most of all) and the other is the loser. The Tenant lost his previous case and so understands this concept.
The Tribunal proceedings not only provide parties with a platform to address their grievances but also open the door for the other party involved, in this case, the Landlord, to address any of their valid grievances as well, thus promoting the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal’s priority is to discern legal rights and wrongs only, but in defence of the legal system, which is not concerned with moral determinations as such, I perceive no moral wrong in what the Landlord has done. He is taking part in the same legal contest which the Tenant initiated.
While the Tenant contends that the Landlord’s decision to bring a claim solely in response to the Tenant's application is immoral, it is worth noting that the Tenant’s own actions—namely the repeated rent breaches, the breach notice issued on 7 November 2023, the subsequent Tribunal application, and the failure to vacate the premises—could be perceived by the Landlord as actions lacking in moral propriety. Both parties, therefore, have concerns about the behaviour of the other.
Likely, the Tenant will not see it this way, however, the Tenant appeared to struggle with viewing events from an objective standpoint. When I reasoned with him, he was able to see where he too may have made mistakes but was very quick to criticise the Landlord, as if to justify his actions with regard to some perceived wrongdoing by the Landlord.
I can see that the Tenant did not fully grasp what the Landlord meant when he acknowledged his failings and suggested he would abandon his claims and give the Tenant his bond back. The Tenant likely overlooked the fact that the Landlord was in pain during the hearing. He was focused on establishing his claims and winning the contest. The Tenant’s lack of insight and understanding, and objectivity, betrayed a pronounced self-centeredness that cannot be ignored.
The Landlord retains his right to present and have his claims heard. The focus remains on the substance of these claims, rather than their origin or timing.
As a final word, adjudication emphasises legal stances over personal sentiments and grievances. Both parties would do well to remember this. The Tribunal is not the forum for settling personal scores. Tenant’s Claims Failure to maintain – hole in wall
The Tenant claims the Landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises according to the obligations outlined in section 45, which includes ensuring cleanliness, repair, and compliance with smoke alarm, insulation, and other health and safety regulations.
The Tenant submits, and the Landlord accepts, there was a hole in the wall left following repair of a shower leak, which remained unrectified from 31 August 2022 and was not complete before the tenancy ended on 1 March 2023.
The parties text messages provide useful context: 27 August 2023 Thompson: Awsome Smyth: Walls drying up pretty good too and I got drive way sorted. Had just popped of from pressure so cut a fresh end and she's all good hahaha Thompson: Thats awsome thanks man Smyth: No Stress dude and hey before I get into it do you mind if I rearrange shed a Lil? Like just move that cabinet that’s on the middle of to the side?? Thompson: Na go for it 31 August 2023 Thompson: Hey man hows that wall drying no issues Smyth: Hey man I was going message you it's actually dry as about and we have been smashing the shower too so she's looking damn good.
The Landlord accepts the hole could have been attended to in a timelier manner but says he did get onto the shower leak straight away. I accept the Landlord’s evidence that the parties relationship deteriorated after he gave the Tenant a termination notice in September 2022 but consider he could have arranged for someone else to come and repair the wall.
The Tenant says the hole resulted in loss of amenity and was a child hazard. I agree the loss of amenity claim and award the Tenant $100.00.
As to the safety hazard, the Tenant considered small pieces of particle board which had broken away from the hole in the wall were a choking hazard for his young daughter. I remain unconvinced that the particle board, even if it had broken away into several small pieces, would have become a choking hazard more serious than any of the number of other potential choking hazards present in the Tenant’s home. If he considered the peril to life posed by the broken board so imminent and serious, why was it not his evidence that he attempted to cover it with tape or some other material as a temporary measure? I am altogether unconvinced.
The hole in the wall would also have created thermal heat loss and would have added to the Tenant’s heating costs. I award the Landlord a further $100.00 for additional power consumption. Failure to Provide Compliance Records
The Tenant asserts the landlord did not furnish records concerning compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days of request, as per section 45.
The Landlord concedes this point. There has been an unlawful act. I do not consider the Landlords failure intentional, however, and neither do I consider the effect of this defalcation on the Tenant severe. I make no award of exemplary damages. Vacant Possession/Landlord’s Property
The Tenant claims the Landlord left his property inside the garage at the premises during the Tenancy. The Tenant has asked the Landlord when he would be removing his belongings from the garage. The Landlord did promise to collect but never got around to doing it. The Tenant has provided photographs of the Landlord’s property and I have reviewed the parties’ text messages. These support the Tenant’s claim.
The Landlord says he did leave his property in the garage as he had nowhere else to store it, though he did actively search for storage options.
The Landlord’s obligation to grant vacant possession to the Tenant does not extend to facilities, which include the garage: ss 2 and 37 of the Act.
The Tenant claims $40/week from the start of the Tenancy until the garage could be used on 27 August 2022. On the basis of the parties’ text exchange, I conclude the Landlord had given his permission for the Tenant to move his property in the garage on 27 August, in response to the Tenant’s request. I am unclear as to why he did not ask the Landlord whether he could move his property before that date.
The Tenant did use utility in not having access to storage space in the garage and I award him $10/week until the garage could be used the duration of the Tenancy: $410.00 Illegal Entry
The Tenant alleges the landlord entered the premises without obtaining the required consent or giving proper notice, violating s 48. The Tenant’s claim relates to the incidence in June 2022, where the Landlord came to the home asking the Tenant why he had not paid the rent.
The Landlord did not gain entry to the premises unlawfully. He had notified the Tenant of his visit, albeit at short notice. Both parties agree the Landlord called the Tenant and said he was coming over.
Both parties agree the Tenant permitted the Landlord to come inside the home and the two had a discussion. The Landlord left and there is no complaint from the Tenant at this time. Harassment
The Tenant accuses the landlord of infringing on their peace, comfort, and privacy through harassment, contrary to section 38.
The Tenant points to the following incidents, also raised in the previous proceedings: a. An incident in June 2022 where the landlord was allegedly aggressive and harassing over rent arrears. b. An incident in August 2022 incident where the landlord behaved in a disrespectful and intimidating manner during a repair visit. c. Multiple text reminders from the landlord about overdue rent. d. An incident on the vacate date when the Landlord came to the premises and abused the Tenant.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I cannot find a consistent pattern of behaviour from the Landlord that can be characterised as “troubling, worrying, or distressing” to the Tenant in the manner that meets the threshold of “harassment” as defined in MacDonald v Dodds.
The Tenant’s evidence concerning harassment by the Landlord in June and August do not align with the parties’ friendly and polite text messages after that date (paragraph 40 above). I gather the Landlord has been persistent in following up missed rent with the Tenant and has involved third parties when he has become frustrated by the Tenant’s delays and excuses as discerned from the parties text messages.
I consider the Landlord could have been more professional in how he dealt with the Tenant’s repeated rent breaches, but do not consider he has set out to deliberately harass the Tenant.
I find the Landlord was troubled, worried and distressed by the Tenant’s repeated non-payment of rent and was uncertain about what to do.
The Landlord was also frustrated by delays in retaking possession of the premises, given the Tenant’s unsuccessful legal challenge and his gratuitous extensions, and gave evidence of having felt intimidated by Jamie and others who were present at the premises on handover after the handover time. The Landlord arrived an hour later than agreed but said he was delayed by a vehicle accident. I think it more probable that the Landlord was waiting for the Tenant and his associates to leave the property, but I make no finding in that regard. I do note, however, the ongoing tensions between the parties and that there was a higher chance of escalation that afternoon because the Tenant was, by his own evidence, still in disagreement with the outcome of his legal challenge and firmly believed the Landlord had terminated his tenancy in a retaliatory way.
There was no evidence from the Tenant as to why his friends and helpers were required at the premises beyond the handover time and I consider, on balance, they deliberately remained behind, knowing the Landlord would be arriving.
The Landlord arrived at the property and was verbally abusive. The Landlord was assaulted. This was not disputed. The aggressor was the Tenant’s brother, and he apologised for hitting the Landlord, as he believed the Landlord had put his hands on the Tenant.
The Tenant claims the Landlord grabbed him by the collar but is unable to establish this with recourse to reliable eye-witness evidence.
One of the Tenant’s friends, who was present when the Landlord arrived, recalls the Landlord arriving at the property, recalls him raising his voice at the Tenant (in his words, the Landlord was out of line), and the Tenant’s brother assaulting the Landlord, but does not recall the Landlord ever touching the Tenant. He says the Landlord was up in the Tenant’s face, but he did not see the Landlord grab the Tenant. His evidence was that there was a video recording of the Landlord which they watched together with the Landlord, following the assault, and it does not show the Landlord putting his hands on the Tenant. The video recording was not provided in evidence.
The Tenant claims his sister witnessed the Landlord grab him. The Tenant’s sister was available to give evidence at the first hearing but abruptly left the hearing room during my questioning of her. I found her evidence unhelpful; it contained mostly subjective opinion and bias. She had difficulty answering straightforward questions, and claimed she had a confrontation with court security before being admitted into the hearing room.
I conclude that the main source of conflict between the parties during the Tenancy was due to the Tenant’s inability to pay the rent on time and his failure to communicate to the Landlord his position and how he intended to deal with his increasing defaults. That does not excuse the Landlord’s lack of professionalism and, at times, ‘out of line’ behaviour. I trust there have been learnings for both parties from this experience.
While the Tenant has presented multiple incidents which he perceived as harassment, the legal threshold for "harassment" extends beyond mere discomfort or disturbances. Harassment, in a legal setting, demands a persistent and malicious intent. In this case, while the Landlord’s actions were intrusive and caused distress at times, they seemed to be driven more by concerns over repeated rent breaches rather than a deliberate intent to cause undue distress to the Tenant. The frequency and context of these interactions, although significant, do not meet the legal criteria for harassment. Lack of Record Keeping
The Tenant indicates the Landlord has failed to keep appropriate records of rent and bond payments, contravening section 30.
The Landlord has provided records of rent and bond payments. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
The Tenant alleges a breach of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019, particularly the ventilation standard, as required under section 45(1)(bb).
The Landlord agrees there was no extraction fan in the bathroom when there should have been. I consider the Landlord knew or ought to have known about the lack of adequate ventilation in the bathroom because he visited the home in August to repair the shower and, while the Landlord cannot specifically recall what he discussed with the Tenant at the time, the Tenant says he told the Landlord about the excess moisture in the bathroom and the Tenant has also provided photographs which show the effects of excess moisture; causing wallpaper to peal and mould to flourish.
The Tenant indicated the lack of adequate ventilation in the bathroom contributed to a number of health issues for his children and him, including asthma. While he provided no concrete evidence in this regard, I consider the presence of mould and lack of adequate insulation will not have helped. I do not consider I require medical evidence to reach this conclusion as the conditions in the home were not up to the healthy homes requirements.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) of the Act.
I award the Tenant $60/week for three months as exemplary damages for this breach: $720.00. Discrimination
The Tenant claims discrimination against them by the landlord during the tenancy, which contravenes both the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Human Rights Act 1999.
The Tenant says the Landlord treated him differently due to the parties family status, as the Landlord was in a relationship with a family member of the Tenant. The Tenant was no clear about how exactly the Landlord treated him differently, but I gathered the Tenant was saying the Landlord presumed he could visit the property and text him as often as he pleased because of the family connection.
I consider the parties both treated each other differently by virtue of this being an arrangement with a familial genesis. The Landlord did call and text the Tenant, particularly when he was following up rent payments, but the Tenant also texted the Landlord when he needed something.
I do not find the Landlord discriminated against the Tenant. Landlord’s Claims Change of Locks
Given the circumstances, it seems that the Landlord's decision to change the locks was not based on reasonable grounds, especially considering he likely knew that his ex-partner, a half-owner of the premises, had received the keys back from the Tenant. The Landlord’s ex-partner was phoned into the hearing and read out the message she had sent, which is the same message she had forwarded to the Tenant from her phone, and I had no reason not to believe her.
The reason for changing the locks (concern for safety) was not valid, and thus the expense was not necessary. Storage Shed for December-March
The Tenant did not vacate the premises after receiving a valid 90-day notice, and further, failed in his attempt to contest it. The additional costs incurred by the Landlord, such as needing a storage shed for his property upon vacating his tenancy, due to the Tenant’s overstay, can be claimed from the Tenant. I award $1,528.00 to the Landlord, which represents his storage costs for the period he was denied possession of the premises. The Landlord has provided an invoice to evidence his loss. Stress due to Being Homeless for 4 months
Claims for emotional distress or "stress" are typically more challenging to prove and quantify in monetary terms. In order to successfully claim this amount, the Landlord would need to demonstrate both that the Tenant’s actions directly caused the stress and that this high level of compensation claimed ($10,000) is appropriate for the distress endured. This might involve providing evidence of medical bills, therapy sessions, or other concrete impacts on the Landlord's well- being. The Landlord has provided no such evidence and his claim is declined. Concluding Remarks
It is important to look beyond individual incidents and recognise an underlying theme – that of a strained relationship, clouded by rent issues, familial ties, and communication breakdowns. Both parties had expectations and assumptions of each other, perhaps due to their family connection. This familial relationship might have blurred the boundaries that typically exist in a landlord-tenant relationship, leading to many of the issues addressed. While each incident has been assessed on its merit, it is essential to understand that many of these incidents are symptoms of a larger, more complex relationship dynamic.
This case presented a myriad of issues, each with its unique evidentiary and legal nuances. While both parties faced challenges, neither emerged as a clear “winner.”
This decision should serve as a reflection on the importance of maintaining clear boundaries, communication, and mutual respect in a tenancy relationship, especially when there are overlapping personal connections.
As I have found that neither party has succeeded any more than the other in this case: a. I do not reimburse the parties filing fees. b. I decline name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4546457 — Healthy homes at 23 Western Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4546457 — Healthy homes at 23 Western Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions