What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4624751?

The tribunal order states: Kim Katherine Helmbright must pay Roxanna C Mack and Gillian A Pool (as

How much money was awarded in case 4624751?

Agreement: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,457.14 awarded to landlord; Statement: $225.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4624751?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4624751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9720306-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4624751?

The tribunal order states: Kim Katherine Helmbright must pay Roxanna C Mack and Gillian A Pool (as

How much money was awarded in case 4624751?

Agreement: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,457.14 awarded to landlord; Statement: $225.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4624751?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4624751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9720306-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

601 Cable Bay Block Road, Cable Bay 0420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4624751 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4624751 — net $9,332.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 July 2023	$10,457.14		Rent arrears to 13 July 2023
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide a written tenancy		$250.00	Failure to provide a written tenancy
agreement		$250.00	agreement
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide a healthy homes		$400.00	Failure to provide a healthy homes
statement		$225.00	statement
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$10,477.58	$1,145.44
Net award	$9,332.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,332.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4624751 — net $9,332.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 July 2023	$10,457.14		Rent arrears to 13 July 2023
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide a written tenancy		$250.00	Failure to provide a written tenancy
agreement		$250.00	agreement
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide a healthy homes		$400.00	Failure to provide a healthy homes
statement		$225.00	statement
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$10,477.58	$1,145.44
Net award	$9,332.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,332.14

Order

Kim Katherine Helmbright must pay Roxanna C Mack and Gillian A Pool (as trustees of the Badger Family Trust) $9,332.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 31 October 2022 and ended on 13 July 2023.
The premises is a house located on a farm in Cable Bay. There is a minor dwelling on the farm, which Ms Mack occupied during the tenancy.
The rent of $800.00 included the right for Ms Helmbright to graze animals on part of the land.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, power costs, and compensation for garage remotes.
The tenant’s application seeks exemplary damages under various headings.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 15 November 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Landlord’s application Rent arrears
Ms Mack’s rent record shows rent arrears of $10,542.18 to the end of the tenancy.
The claim is based on rent of $800.00 per week until the week beginning 26 June 2023, reducing to $670.00 per week until the end of the tenancy. The rent reduced after the grazing arrangement ended.
Ms Helmbright disputed the amount of rent arrears claimed on the grounds that: a. Her agreement with Ms Mack was rent of $635.00 per week for the house and $165.00 per week for grazing. b. She made two cash payments to Ms Mack during the tenancy and only one of those payments is shown in Ms Mack’s rent record.
In terms of the rent / grazing split, Ms Mack’s own written submissions state: Correct grazing fees are - $50 per week per horse (minimum) $2.50 per day per cow, so that would be a total of $205 per week, I discounted it to $165. This was also disclosed to Kim.
Ms Mack denied that Ms Helmbright made two cash payments. She accepts that Ms Helmbright made one.
My findings are: a. The rent reduced to $635.00 from 26 June 2023 to the end of the tenancy. b. It is not proven that Ms Helmbright made two cash payments during the tenancy.
The total proven rent arrears is $10,457.14. Power
There is no separate meter or sub-meter for this property. Ms Mack charged Ms Helmbright half of the power bill.
The claim seeks $311.15 for power.
Tenants are only liable for outgoings (including power) that they consume 1 .
Because there is no separate meter, Ms Mack is unable to establish Ms Helmbright’s actual power consumption.
It is not proven that Ms Helmbright owes any amount for power.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Garage door remotes
At the beginning of the tenancy Ms Helmbright was given a single key. She returned the key at the end of the tenancy.
The garage door remotes were not supplied to Ms Helmbright at the beginning of the tenancy. Ms Mack submitted that they were in a drawer inside the house, where they had been for as long as she could remember. They were missing when Ms Helmbright’s tenancy ended.
Ms Helmbright submitted that she did not see the remotes and never used them.
Claims of this type are usually brought on the basis that tenants must “return to the landlord all keys or other such devices provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant 2 ” at the end of the tenancy. However, in this instance, the remotes were not “provided” to the tenant.
The claim is essentially for missing chattels.
The landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the chattel was present at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end. This is commonly done by way of a chattels list attached to the tenancy agreement.
In this instance Ms Mack did not provide a written tenancy agreement.
My finding is that Ms Mack has not proven, to the standard of more likely than not, that the remotes were present when this tenancy began.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. 1 Section 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iv) RTA Tenant application Exemplary damages – general principles
Certain breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) are declared to be “unlawful acts”.
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally 3 .
The RTA specifies a maximum amount of exemplary damages that can be awarded for each type of unlawful act 4 .
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to 5 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest. Failure to provide a written tenancy agreement
Landlords must ensure that the tenancy agreement is in writing. Before the start of the tenancy, the landlord must sign the agreement and provide a copy of it to the tenant 6 .
A breach of this duty is an unlawful act 7 . Exemplary damages of up to $750.00.
Ms Mack accepted that she failed to meet this duty.
I understand that Ms Mack began drawing up a draft tenancy agreement, but went no further. Ms Mack submitted that Ms Helmbright insisted upon an informal and friendly arrangement.
The informal relationship between the landlord and tenant does not remove the landlord’s obligation to provide a written tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damage is to award one-third of the maximum amount unless there are particular aggravating or mitigating factors 8 . 3 Section 109(3) RTA 4 Schedule 1A RTA 5 Section 109(3) RTA 6 Section 13(1) and (2) RTA 7 Section 13(4)(a) RTA 8 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781
I will award exemplary damages of $250.00. Landlord requiring more than more than two weeks’ rent in advance
The landlord’s rent record shows that Ms Helmbright paid $1,600.00 on 28 October 2022 and then $6,400.00 on 3 November 2022. This paid the bond, and the equivalent of six weeks of rent in advance.
Ms Helmbright submitted that she did this because Ms Mack asked her to.
Ms Mack submitted that she did not ask for more than two weeks’ rent in advance. She submitted that Ms Helmbright made this payment of her own volition and then told her that she had done it as a sign of good faith.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord the “require” payment of more than two weeks’ rent in advance 9 . It is not an unlawful act for a landlord to receive a payment voluntarily made by the tenant.
There is no written evidence of Ms Mack requiring a large payment of rent in advance. Ms Helmbright submitted that the request was verbal.
Ms Helmbright has the burden of proof. The only evidence available to me is the conflicting recollections of Ms Helmbright and Ms Mack. There is no independent evidence.
My finding is that it is not proven that Ms Mack requested payment of for more than two weeks’ rent in advance. Breach of quiet enjoyment Introduction
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant 10 .
A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act 11 .
Ms Helmbright raised the following issues under this heading: a. Ms Mack visiting the property frequently without notice and without good cause. b. A friend of Ms Mack visiting the property at the end of the tenancy. c. Ms Mack contacting the media and speaking about tenancy issues. 9 Section 23(4)(a) RTA 10 Section 38(2) RTA 11 Section 38(3) RTa d. Harassment by notices in the latter part of the tenancy. e. Stock issues. Frequent visits
Ms Helmbright submitted that Ms Mack came to the premises frequently and without good cause.
Ms Helmbright provided some stills from a security camera showing Ms Mack approaching the house.
It is not unlawful for a landlord to walk up to the front door of the house without giving notice. Landlords do not need to give notice unless they intend to go inside the premises.
Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace and privacy of the tenant. If a landlord is at the premises excessively, without good reason, or if they behave inappropriately when they are there, this can amount to a breach of the tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
Ms Helmbright’s evidence shows that Ms Mack went to the property multiple times. However, it is relevant that: a. Ms Mack lived nearby, and they had an arrangement with regards to grazing animals. b. In the early part of the tenancy there was an informal / social relationship between them. In that context it would not be unusual for Ms Mack to visit without having a particular ‘landlord’ reason to do so.
Ms Helmbright has not proven that Ms Mack’s visits to the property were inappropriate or excessive. There is no evidence that Ms Mack behaved inappropriately during any of her visits.
There is no basis for an award of damages under this heading. Visit by Ms Mack’s friend
A friend of Ms Mack visited Ms Helmbright at the premises near the end of the tenancy.
Ms Helmbright submitted that Ms Mack sent her friend, and that the purpose was to harass her.
Ms Mack submitted that she did not send her friend, in fact she asked her not to visit Ms Helmbright.
It seems that the friend had good intentions, but I acknowledge that Ms Helmbright found this visit irritating and unnecessary.
However, I do not agree that a friend of the landlord coming to the premises during the tenancy per se amounts to a breach of the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. There is no suggestion that Ms Mack’s friend behaved inappropriately or used inappropriate language towards Ms Helmbright when she visited.
This incident does not amount to a breach of the landlord’s legal duty and there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages. Media contact
Ms Mack did not dispute that she spoke with a journalist, but she submitted that this occurred after end of the tenancy.
The evidence available to me is consistent with Ms Mack’s statement that her communication with the journalist after the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s duty is to not cause an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises by the tenant. This duty ends when the tenancy ends.
There is no basis for an award of exemplary damages in respect of this issue. Harassment by notices
Ms Helmbright submitted that after Ms Mack gave notice to terminate the tenancy, she continued to harass her by: a. Sending her multiple breach notices; and b. Issuing trespass notices to her sons.
A landlord issuing breach notices to the tenant could only be considered harassment of the tenant if the notices are clearly vexatious and without grounds. Landlords have a right to issue a breach notice to a tenant if the landlord considers that the tenant has breached a legal duty owed under the terms of the tenancy agreement or the RTA. A tenant has a similar right to issue breach notices to the landlord.
Ms Mack’s notices were not vexatious and without grounds. They were to do with rent arrears. Ms Helmbright was in fact in rent arrears.
Ms Mack issuing trespass notices to Ms Helmbright’s sons is part of an on- going dispute about whether Ms Helmbright’s sons were tenants in the verbal tenancy agreement. Ms Helmbright submitted that they were. Ms Mack maintains that they were not.
Clarity about who is the tenant is one of many reasons why landlords must provide a written tenancy agreement. Ms Mack is ultimately responsible for the confusion / misunderstanding on this point.
Even if Ms Helmbright’s sons were not tenants, it was not appropriate for Ms Mack to issue trespass notices to them. Ms Helmbright is entitled to have guests. Ms Helmbright has the right to occupy the premises and it is for her to decide who comes and goes from the premises (subject the requirements of the RTA and other relevant law).
Ms Mack acknowledged that she received incorrect advice about the trespass notices and that she should not have issued them.
I am satisfied that this action was a more than minimal interference with Ms Helbright’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, and it is appropriate to make an award of damages.
I will not make an award of exemplary damages. I accept that at the time that she issued the notices Ms Mack understood that she had a right to do so.
I will make an award of compensation to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused to Ms Helmbright.
I will award compensation of $400.00. Stock issues
Ms Helmbright submitted that: a. One of her cows went missing whilst in Ms Mack’s care. b. Ms Mack interfered with her attempts to remove the stock at the end of the tenancy.
It is not disputed that one of Ms Helmbright’s cows went missing. Ms Helmbright suspects that Ms Mack sold the animal. Ms Mack denies this. Ms Mack submitted that the animal simply went missing one day. She tried to find it, without success.
This issue does not directly relate to Ms Mack’s obligations as Ms Helmbright’s landlord, it is to do with her obligations under the separate grazing agreement.
Ms Helmbright could bring a civil claim against Ms Mack for the value of the animal, but the burden of proof would be on her to establish that the loss of the animal was a consequence of some careless or intentional act by Ms Mack. There is simply no evidence about what happened to the animal, only speculation.
Ms Helmbright submitted that Ms Mack sabotaged her attempts to remove her animals from the property. This meant that Ms Helmbright had to arrange for transport twice, and the incidents caused her stress and inconvenience.
Ms Mack denied these allegations. Ms Mack submitted that the reason why the first attempt at removing the animals was unsuccessful had nothing to do with her. She provided a statement from the driver who successfully removed the animals, which states that she (Ms Mack) “did not stop me accessing the property or removing the cows from the property”.
Ms Mack argued that there was no reason for her to prevent Ms Helmbright from removing her animals. She had given notice to terminate the tenancy. She wanted Ms Helmbright and her animals to leave.
There is a logic to Ms Mack’s argument.
It is not proven that Ms Mack impeded or interfered with Ms Helmbright’s efforts to remove her animals from the property. Failure to lodge bond
Ms Mack did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23-working days of receipt.
The bond was later applied to rent arrears at the tenant’s request.
Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23-working days is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 can apply.
Ms Mack did not provide a reason as to why she failed to lodge the bond. She emphasised that the landlord / tenant relationship was very informal and friendly at the beginning, and that Ms Helmbright was insistent upon this.
I will award exemplary damages of $500.00. Smoke alarms
Ms Helmbright submitted that there was only one smoke alarm in the premises during her tenancy. The smoke alarm was located in the hallway.
Ms Mack submitted that there were two smoke alarms in the hallway.
Ms Mack provided a copy of the original plans for the home, which show two alarms. Ms Mack also provided a healthy homes report, completed a month after the end of the tenancy, which shows two smoke alarms in the hallway. I was provided with other photographs showing two alarms present, but I have no information about the date that the photographs were taken.
Ms Helmbright has the burden of proof to establish that the premises were not compliant in respect of smoke alarms.
No evidence was provided.
The claim is not proven. Failure to repair overflowing septic system
This part of the claim relates to the septic system for the dwelling that Ms Mack occupied, not the dwelling that Ms Helmbright occupied.
Ms Mack acknowledged that she had an issue with her septic tank, but she submitted that this had no impact upon Ms Helmbright.
Ms Helmbright talked about a day when a Council inspector visited the property, possibly about the septic tank leak, and how the visit caused her some minor inconvenience
Ms Helmbright submitted that the overflow spilled over onto grazing land that she was using, but Ms Mack denied this, and Ms Helmbright provided no evidence in support of her claim.
Ms Helmbright has not proven that the septic tank issue on Ms Mack’s property caused any loss of amenity in respect of the tenanted premises.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Failure to provide healthy homes information
If a tenant asks a landlord to provide healthy homes information which the landlord is obliged to hold, the landlord must provide this information to the tenant within 21 days of that request 12 .
A breach of this duty is an unlawful act 13 . Exemplary damages of up to $750.00 can apply.
Landlords must “retain sufficient relevant records or documents as reasonably provide evidence of the landlord’s compliance with the healthy homes standards in relation to the tenancy” 14 , but this obligation: a. Only requires landlords to keep such records as they had in their possession at the start of the tenancy; and b. Does not require the landlord to create a record merely for the purpose of retaining it 15 . 12 Section 45(1AC) RTA 13 Section 45(1AD)(a) RTA 14 Section 40(1), Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 15 Section 40(2), Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019
Ms Mack did not obtain a healthy homes assessment report before the start of this tenancy. Ms Mack submitted that the house was newly built approximately eight years ago, and she assumed that it would meet the healthy homes standards. Ms Mack obtained a healthy homes assessment report after the end of the tenancy, which confirmed that the property is compliant in all respects.
This part of Ms Helmbright’s claim cites section 45(1AC) RTA, which is about the obligation to provide healthy homes information on request (as discussed above), but her main concern seems to be about a different obligation that landlords have – to provide a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement.
Landlords are obliged to include a healthy homes statement in the written tenancy agreement 16 . A failure to do this is an unlawful act 17 . Exemplary damages of up to $750.00 can apply.
Ms Mack did not provide a written agreement and therefore did not provide a healthy homes statement in the agreement.
My findings are: a. It is not proven that Ms Helmbright made a specific request for Ms Mack to provide the healthy homes records / documents that she held. b. In any event, Ms Mack did not hold any healthy homes records / documents. c. Ms Mack failed to provide a healthy homes statement. d. It is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages for that unlawful act.
I will award exemplary damages of $250.00. Retaliatory notice
Ms Helmbright’s written submission states: We believe that the 63 day notice to terminate the periodic tenancy is an unlawful retaliatory notice in response to the loss of our cow which she was responsible for [...] The 63 day notice to terminate the periodic tenancy was backdated to the 10 th of May 2022 whilst being served on the 22 nd of May
A retaliatory termination notice is one where: 16 Section 13A(1A) RTA 17 Section 13A(1F) RTA in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated by the exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement by this or any other Act 18
It is clear that the relationship between the landlord and tenant had broken down by May 2023, when Ms Mack issued the notice of termination.
However: a. Landlords have a right to terminate the tenancy if they require the premises for use by themselves or a member of their family. b. Ms Helmbright’s complaint about the loss of her cow is not an instance of a tenant exercising a legal right or power. c. The tenancy has ended and there is no evidence to indicate that Ms Mack did not move back into the property.
Ms Mack submitted that she hand-delivered the notice on 10 May 2022. There is no evidence to prove Ms Helmbright’s allegation that Ms Mack back- dated the notice.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Failure to provide a receipt for rent
Ms Helmbright submitted that she made two cash payments of rent to Ms Mack and she did not receive a receipt for either payment.
Landlords must give for rent payments, but are not obliged to give a receipt for ‘bank to bank’ rent payments, or rent paid by re-direction 19 .
Where rent is paid in cash, the landlord must give the receipt immediately 20 .
Failure to give a receipt is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $350.00 can apply.
As noted above, Ms Mack accepts that Ms Helmbright made one payment in cash. She denies the other alleged payment.
Ms Mack did not provide a reason for failing to give a receipt other than that Ms Helmbright did not ask for one.
The reason for the requirement to give a receipt is obvious – cash payments can be difficult to prove if they are disputed, and this puts tenants at risk.
It is an aggravating factor that in this instance there is a disputed cash payment. 18 Section 54 RTA 19 Section 29(1) and (4) RTA 20 Section 29(2)(a) RTA
I will award exemplary damages of $225.00 for failing to give a receipt. Outcome, name suppression
Both parties were partially successful in their applications, and both are entitled to recover the filing fee 21 .
Ms Helmbright is to pay Ms Mack $9,332.14.
Ms Helmbright sought name suppression.
The Tribunal must grant name suppression to a party who has “wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings” 22 .
Ms Helmbright has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
The Tribunal may grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 23 .
In this instance: a. There may be some legitimate public interest in the proceedings. b. There is no personal information in this decision that make it unsuitable for publication.
The request for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4624751 — Rent arrears at 601 Cable Bay Block Road, Cable Bay 0420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4624751 — Rent arrears at 601 Cable Bay Block Road, Cable Bay 0420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions