What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4580030?

The tribunal order states: The bond of $2400.00 must be lodged with the bond centre immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4580030?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Locksmith Costs: $115.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $9,997.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4580030?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4580030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10170991-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4580030?

The tribunal order states: The bond of $2400.00 must be lodged with the bond centre immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4580030?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Locksmith Costs: $115.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $9,997.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4580030?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4580030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10170991-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

66 SUTTON CRESCENT, Papakura, PAPAKURA 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4580030 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4580030 — net $762.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 April 2024	$9,997.71		Rent arrears to 5 April 2024
Exemplary damages: bond		$600.00	bond
Exemplary damages: FTM		$2,000.00	FTM
Exemplary damages: HHS- draughts		$1,500.00	HHS- draughts
Exemplary damages: HHS - ventilation		$1,500.00	HHS - ventilation
Exemplary damages: HHS - heating		$1,000.00	HHS - heating
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$500.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: harassment		$1,000.00	harassment
Exemplary damages: cleaning		$1,000.00	cleaning
Locksmith costs		$115.00	Locksmith costs
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$9,997.71	$9,235.44
Net award	$762.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$762.27

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4580030 — net $762.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 April 2024	$9,997.71		Rent arrears to 5 April 2024
Exemplary damages: bond		$600.00	bond
Exemplary damages: FTM		$2,000.00	FTM
Exemplary damages: HHS- draughts		$1,500.00	HHS- draughts
Exemplary damages: HHS - ventilation		$1,500.00	HHS - ventilation
Exemplary damages: HHS - heating		$1,000.00	HHS - heating
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry		$500.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: harassment		$1,000.00	harassment
Exemplary damages: cleaning		$1,000.00	cleaning
Locksmith costs		$115.00	Locksmith costs
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$9,997.71	$9,235.44
Net award	$762.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$762.27

Order

The bond of $2400.00 must be lodged with the bond centre immediately.
Talei Pritchard must pay Par Excellence Properties Limited $762.27 immediately, made up as follows:
The application for termination and possession is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears. There is not a full rent summary available, however the tenant accepts that the rent arrears are owed.
The landlord also seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis of the rent arrears.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages/compensation for failure to comply with the Health Homes Standards (“HHS”), failure to maintain the premises, failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, entry without notice, failure to lodge the bond, and harassment.
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Termination and possession
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears, or alternatively an order for possession, enforcing the notice of termination served on the tenant. Termination for rent arrears.
The Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. Alternatively, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord submits that both section 55 and section 56 are satisfied in the present case.
However, having heard the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant can off-set rent arrears such that rent is not 21 days in arrears. The tenant’s claims arise from the landlord’s actions, pre-dating the filing of the landlord’s application for termination.
In relation to the remaining rent arrears, the landlord claims to have served a 14- day notice on the tenant by text message, and that the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The particular messages relied on were not provided to me, however they seem to have included statements to the effect of “treat this as a 14-day notice”, which may have put the tenant on notice of a breach allegation, but I cannot be certain that they set out the specifics of the breaches in terms of quantum and the time for remedy.
Further, given the tenant’s legitimate claims against, the landlord I consider that it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy, and the application is declined on that basis also. Possession
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises on the basis that notices to terminate the tenancy were issued on 13 April 2023 and 23 September 2023.
Neither notice specifies the reason for termination of the tenancy, as required by section 51(3) of the RTA.
The first notice was accompanied by an email indicating that, amongst other things, the landlord intended on “putting his daughter’s family into the property”. However, even if I accepted that this rendered the notice compliant with section 51(3) the application for possession was filed more than 90 days after the expiry of the notice. Section 64(2) provides that no possession order can be made more than 90 days after the termination of the tenancy.
The second notice does not contain a reason for termination, and I consider that is a significant issue. I am mindful that section 51(4) states that non-compliance with the strict requirements of section 51(3) does not make a notice invalid, so long as it is in writing and the date of expiry is clear to the recipient, “and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.”
In the present case, there is a clear question mark around the basis for the termination. At the hearing, I was told that the reason for termination was the landlord’s intention to sell the premises. That would require a 90-day notice to terminate, rather than the 63 days given. Further, I consider than an absence of reasons for termination makes is difficult for a tenant to challenge the genuineness of the notice given. Accordingly, I consider that the failure to include reasons for the termination is serious enough that the notice is invalid.
I am fortified in this by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Winther v Housing Corporation of New Zealand [2010] NZCA 601, [2011] 1 NZLR 825 where the Court found, at [81] that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to refuse to make a possession order “if the decision to terminate was made in contravention of the [law]. The District Court has the same powers as the TT on appeal and could likewise refuse to make a possession order in these circumstances.” The Court also concluded at [74]-[77] that: [74]... First, in terms of s 64, the TT is obliged to determine whether the landlord is “entitled to possession of the premises”. We do not consider that issue is to be determined solely on the basis of whether, as an incident of ownership, the landlord is entitled to possession. If a landlord has terminated a tenancy ... unlawfully ... we cannot accept that Parliament could have intended that the landlord would be entitled to possession, notwithstanding that unlawful conduct ... No court or tribunal should lend its support to an unlawful act unless Parliament has required it to do so by unequivocal language. There is nothing in the RTA which compels that conclusion. [75] Given the importance accorded by international instruments to the right to be free from arbitrary or unlawful interference with one's home and the protections incorporated in our domestic legislation, the courts will not readily ascribe an intention to Parliament that a landlord may evict a tenant in a case where the decision by the landlord to issue a notice to quit is based on unlawful discrimination. [76] It does not follow from the fact that no reasons are required for a 90-day notice under s 51(1)(d) that the TT must ignore an unlawful act by the landlord in issuing the notice. The issue of entitlement to possession under s 64 must be established before a possession order may be made. Where it is established that the landlord’s decision is based on an unlawful act, the TT is not obliged to make a possession order and, indeed, should not ordinarily make such an order in the face of opposition from the tenant. [77] The TT could reach that conclusion either on the basis that the landlord is not entitled to possession under s 64 or on the basis that the underlying decision to apply for the possession order is itself unlawful with the consequence that the 90 day notice was also unlawful.
That decision was made prior to the change in legislation removing 90-day notices for termination with reasons required, but I see no reason why the same reasoning would not equally apply to termination notices given under section 51 as it presently reads.
In the present case, I consider that for the landlord to be “entitled to possession” as required by section 64, the termination and reasons for it must be lawful. Absent a reason within the notice, it is difficult to determine the lawfulness of the notice. This is both why a reason for termination is required, and also why the absence of a reason is prejudicial to a tenant.
As stated, if the reason for the notice was the sale of the premises, then the 63 days’ notice given was insufficient, and the notice would be invalid.
This matter is further complicated by the ongoing animosity from the landlord, towards the tenancy, as demonstrated in the text messages and even the email accompanying the first notice, where the landlord states “As the owner wants you out of the property, I have run out of patience in spite your false promises...” it is clear that a significant motivator for the notices is the issues around rent and the tenant’s requests for maintenance. A landlord cannot terminate a tenancy on notice for rent arrears, and giving a notice which is wholly or partially motivated by a tenant exercising their rights under the Act is an unlawful act under section 54 of the RTA.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the landlord is entitled to possession of the premises, and the application for a possession order is declined on this basis also. Exemplary damages generally
The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Failure to lodge bond
Talei Pritchard claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The bond centre has no record of a bond being lodged. The landlord accepts that the bond was not lodged, and rather that it was applied to rent at the start of the tenancy. There was no consent from the tenant for that, and there is no rent summary from the start of the tenancy to confirm that this happened, nor that rent was in arrears. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
I consider that the failure to lodge the bond must have been an intentional act. The landlord is a property manager and I consider he should be aware of his obligations under the Act. The explanation given is not an acceptable reason for failure to lodge the bond.
The effect of that the breach is that the tenants’ have not had benefitted from the security of having the bond held in trust for them. A bond remains the tenant’s property for the duration of the tenancy, so the tenant is entitled to have that interest protected. On this occasion it remained in the landlord’s possession, and he had the use of it.
I further consider that there is a public interest in ensuring that tenant’s money is protected through use of the Bond Centre for the duration of tenancies. A failure to lodge the bond is a serious breach because it undermines the legislative arrangement for the management of residential tenancies.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $600.00.
The landlord must lodge the bond with the band centre immediately. For completeness, I have awarded rent arrears to the date of the hearing. I expect the bond amount to be paid by the landlord. It must not be passed to the tenant as rent arrears at this point. The landlord has not proved that there were rent arrears owed early in the tenancy to justify that use of the bond. Further, had it not been for the tenant’s candid acceptance that the arrears awarded were owed, I would have given serious consideration to dismissing the landlord’s claim for arrears as there are no records of rent going back to the start of the tenancy. Keeping rent records is a requirement under section 30 of the Act so I have little sympathy for the landlord in this respect. The tenant is not to be disadvantaged by the landlord’s failings. Cleanliness
Talei Pritchard claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges that the property was not reasonably clean and tidy at the commencement of the tenancy, that there was rubbish on the outside of the premises, the lawns were overgrown, and the inside of the house was dirty. The tenant provided photographs in support of the application.
The landlord’s position is that the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs which they initially said were taken at the commencement of the tenancy. It was clear that the photos provided were screenshots from Facebook. On questioning the landlord about this, it was clear that the photos were taken earlier, and used in the listing of the premises, rather than photos taken at the commencement of the tenancy. There is no clear evidence of the actual date the photographs were taken. The landlord’s evidence is that the condition of the premises was the same at the start of the tenancy as shown in the photographs.
Ultimately, this became a matter of credibility. The tenant’s photographs were not date stamped, and the landlord’s were taken on an unknown date. Both parties say their photographs reflect the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In addition to the photographs, there is evidence, in the form of emails, which demonstrate the tenant’s concerns about the condition of the tenancy at commencement.
Further, I was concerned by the landlord’s presentation of the photographs as pre-tenancy inspection photographs when they were not, and when the date they were taken remains unclear.
Accordingly, I prefer the evidence of the tenant. I accept that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to moving into an unclean premises and having to attend to the cleaning the house herself to ensure that it was suitable for occupation by her family, including children and her elderly mother.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The issues with the premises were set out for the landlord in advance and nothing was done.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in providing clean, tidy premises in a suitable condition for immediate occupation.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $1,000.00. Failure to maintain.
Talei Pritchard claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges that the following maintenance was requested and not completed by the landlord: a. Repairs to the living room window glass. b. Repairs to window latches c. Pest control. d. Repairs to the oven. e. Provision of keys to the bedroom door locks. f. Clear gutters g. Repair or replacement of the washing line. h. Repairs to the kitchen tap.
The glass in the living room window was broken prior to the tenant moving in. She refused to move into the property until those repairs were completed, and there is communication between the tenant, her case worker and the property manager in relation to that. The landlord accepts that the window was not repaired until May, as there was a dispute about liability for the costs of repairs.
In relation to the window latches, this was raised in a meeting with the case worker and property manager, at the start of the tenancy, but never repaired. The landlord provided an invoice from the repairer indicating he went to the property in August to do the repairs, that he rang the tenant twice and there was no answer, so the repairs were not done. However, there is no evidence of notice being given to the tenant for the repair work being done, and no explanation for why the repairs were delayed until August.
In relation to pest control, the landlord accepts this was raised at the commencement of the tenancy and not attended to until early August. The landlord explains that a 4-week pre-treatment was required prior to the full treatments. However, there is no explanation for the remaining 15-week delay.
In relation to the oven repairs, again the landlord accepts that this issue was raised, however, he does not believe there is anything wrong with the oven, so no repairs were carried out. There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to assess what was wrong with the oven, if anything. That being the case, I accept the evidence of the tenant that it did not operate, and the door was faulty.
In relation to the door locks, the issue became significant for the tenant when her elderly mother, who has early stages of dementia, was locked inside her room. This caused significant concern to the tenant and to her mother, and ongoing concerns in relation to fire safety and the ability to evacuate. The tenant had to pay a locksmith to let her mother out of the room. The tenant removed the locks herself when the landlord failed to provide keys. The landlord’s position was that they could not provide the keys as they did not have any copies. However, they accept that this was not communicated to the tenant. In addition to the claim for exemplary damages, I consider the cost of the locksmith should be reimbursed to the tenant.
In relation to the gutters, repair or replacement of the washing line and repair of the kitchen tap, I am satisfied that these were all raised with the landlord and not repaired.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a house with multiple maintenance issues for a long time. She has had the frustration of repeatedly seeking action from the landlord and being ignored.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair these issues. They were raised several times by the tenant and by the tenant’s case worker and nothing was done. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is significant.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a reasonable and liveable condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $2,000.00. Health Homes Standards
Section 46(1)(bb) of the RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024. Heating
Talei Pritchard considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case there is no health homes assessment, or evidence of the hearing calculations. The tenancy agreement specified a 6Kw heater is required to meet the heating standard. The heat pump installed at the premises has a 4Kw heating capacity. That is not sufficient to meet the standard as set out in the tenancy agreement.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant been living, with her family, in a home with insufficient means of heating it.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to provide sufficient heating. While there was some reliance on the installer of the heat pump, the need to comply with the standard has been well publicised and the landlord should have taken steps to ensure the appropriate heater was chosen.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $1,000.00. Ventilation
Talei Pritchard claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case, the tenant alleges that there are no effective extract fans in the kitchen or bathroom. The ones that are there are not externally ducted as required by the standards. The tenant has sought to the have the fans repaired or replaced as they are creating moisture problems. The landlord did not attend to this, even after the issue of a 14-day notice in January 2023
I find landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a house without proper ventilation, which has exacerbated the issues with poor heating as set out above. Further this is yet another example of the landlord’s failure to meet its obligations under the Act.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to deal with this issue, in addition to the compliance dates being well past, this is an issue the tenants have specifically raised with the landlord as needing attention. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is significant.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, particular these legislated standards.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $1,500.00. Draught stopping
Talei Pritchard claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
As set out, there is no healthy homes assessment for this property. However, the tenant has provided photographs of the property showing clear gaps around the windows and doors. In particular, the photograph of the back door shows a clear line of light around three sides of the door when it is closed. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the premises is not compliant with the draught stopping standards.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a draughty house, exacerbating the issues with heating and dampness.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to attend to this. The landlord’s obligations are well set out and publicised, and the landlord has made no efforts to ensure that the home complies. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is significant.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $1,500.00. Entry without notice
Talei Pritchard claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges that in September 2022 the landlord, or agents of the landlord entered the address without notice. The tenant was asleep at the time, having worked a night shift. She was woken up by people in the hall taking photographs. She asked them to leave and was told they had permission to be there.
The tenant initially thought the people were the owners of the property, however, it turned out they were contractors of the property manager. This was not properly reported back to the tenant. Instead, because the owner of the premises denied entering the dwelling, the property manager took no steps the clarify the situation. When it was apparent the person who entered the premises was a contractor, the landlord simply told the tenant that “this wouldn’t have happened if you replied to my messages” rather than apologising for the entry.
It is the landlord’s obligation to ensure that notice is given for all entries onto property by the landlord or on the landlord’s behalf. On this occasion, this did not happen, and I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant was woken from sleep by strange people entering the house. This was alarming for her and placed stress on both the tenant and her mother.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to give proper notice. The landlord is a professional property manager and is aware of his obligations.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords ensuring proper notice is given for entries into a dwelling to maintain the tenant’s privacy and ensure they are not alarmed or distressed by unexpected attendances.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $500.00. Harassment
Talei Pritchard claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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.
The tenant alleges that the landlord has telephoned text messaged and emailed her excessively. The tenant describes days where the landlord would call her more than 30 times, together with multiple text messages. The landlord accepts sending text messages but denies ringing repeatedly. I accept the tenant’s evidence on this point. Having seen a number of the text messages – both in terms of quantum of messages and tone, I consider it more likely than not that the landlord did telephone the tenant repeatedly to follow up on rent, I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant was subject to a pattern of behaviour from the landlord that did distress her and cause her to become anxious and worn down.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in repeated contacting the tenant. This is not the type or volume of contact that is inadvertent.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in ensuring that landlords remain professional and appropriate in the manner in which they contact tenants.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $1,000.00. Filing fee
Because Talei Pritchard has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4580030 — Rent arrears at 66 SUTTON CRESCENT, Papakura, PAPAKURA 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4580030 — Rent arrears at 66 SUTTON CRESCENT, Papakura, PAPAKURA 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions