What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4706529?

The tribunal order states: Jacqueline Lee Fletcher owes Daisy Zore Zuo $1,885.00 (“the debt”) as

How much money was awarded in case 4706529?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,785.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706529?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10329300-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4706529?

The tribunal order states: Jacqueline Lee Fletcher owes Daisy Zore Zuo $1,885.00 (“the debt”) as

How much money was awarded in case 4706529?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,785.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706529?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10329300-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Hawkley Close, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4706529 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4706529 — net $1,885.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 May 2024	$1,785.00	Rent arrears to 25 May 2024
Exemplary damages	$100.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$1,885.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,885.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4706529 — net $1,885.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 May 2024	$1,785.00	Rent arrears to 25 May 2024
Exemplary damages	$100.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$1,885.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,885.00

Order

Jacqueline Lee Fletcher owes Daisy Zore Zuo $1,885.00 (“the debt”) as calculated in the table below
Jacqueline Lee Fletcher must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By payment of $870.00 on Monday 27 May 2024 for the weekly rent. b. By payment of $1000.00 on Tuesday 4 June 2024 (as Monday 3 June is a public holiday) being $870.00 for rent and $130.00 for the debt. c. By 13 further weekly payments of $1,000.00, being $870.00 for rent and $130.00 for the debt commencing Monday 10 June 2024. d. A final payment of $965.00, being $870.00 for rent and $65.00 for the debt. e. Payments will be every Monday, continuing until 09/09/2024.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, and the exemplary damages. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 25 May 2024$1,785.00 Exemplary damages$100.00 Total award$1,885.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,885.00
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 13 Hawkley Close, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the exemplary damages within 2 working days of the due date, this will be payable immediately.
The landlord shall arrange repair of the broken exterior tiles outside the garage ranch slider by Friday 30 August 2024.
The tenant claims in respect of smoke alarms and bond are withdrawn.
The remaining tenant claims are dismissed.
The Tribunal declares that the tenant must allow the landlord access to the premises in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Tribunal order dated 26 May 2023.
The landlord claim for compensation for damage to palm trees is withdrawn.
The remaining landlord claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place over two days on 14 February 2024 and 15 May 2024.
This tenancy commenced in October 2022. The tenant rented a recently renovated four-bedroom, two-bathroom property built in the early 2000s. The tenant lives in the home with her two adult sons. Past proceedings
The tenancy agreement records under other terms “Garage is not included in the agreement, however, tenants can store personal belongings and park car in garage if have enough space”.
The landlord has belongings stored in the garage. The tenant has also been using the garage.
Effectively the parties have contracted to share the use of the garage, and this has been an ongoing source of tension between them.
The parties had previous proceedings in the Tribunal under case numbers 4441828 and 4472601. An order was made on 26 May 2023 which records that the tenant withdrew her application and the landlord application for termination was dismissed.
The adjudicator also considered a claim to amend the tenancy agreement to remove the clause allowing the tenant to store belongings in the garage. The Adjudicator applied the legal principle of “contra preferendum” which says that an ambiguous contract should be interpreted against the party that drafted it, in this case the landlord. She recorded in paragraph 30 of her reasons “Given the conflicting views, I am unable to set aside the term allowing the tenant to store belongings and park car in the garage.”
Order 4 of the order dated 26 May 2023 states “The parties agree by consent that the landlord can access the garage up to 4 times per month and that the landlord will notify the tenant by txt message beforehand.”
Both parties raised issues regarding the use of the garage at the current hearing. However, this matter has been considered and previously determined by the Tribunal. Neither party filed a rehearing application or appealed the decision of 26 May 2023. That order therefore stands. Current proceedings
Both parties have now filed fresh applications. The tenant filed an application on 9 October 2023 and the landlord cross applied on 30 October 2023. The landlord also filed a further application on 28 March 2024 which largely repeats the claims in her earlier application and adds some further claims. All claims were heard over the two-day hearing.
The claims are summarised as follows:
Tenant claims: (a)A work order to remedy the following maintenance issues claimed: - Smell from internal drains resulting from blocked backyard drain - Loose tiles in outside paving - Removal of pigeons nesting in roof cavity - Repair of rangehood (b)Compensation and/or exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises as described above. (c)Compensation for breaches of Healthy Homes Standards including dampness, ventilation, draughts, insulation and heating and/or failure to provide Healthy Homes Information. (d)A work order to remedy smoke alarm compliance. (d)Exemplary damages or compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment due to an incident that occurred on 27 July 2023. (e)An order determining whether the rent being charged exceeds the market rent and if so to make an order relating to the rent. (f)The landlord breached their duty in respect of the lodgement of the bond. (g)The landlord breached their obligations in respect of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant advised on 14 February 2024 that she withdraws the claims in respect of the smoke alarms and the bond.
Landlord claims: (a)An order terminating the tenancy on three grounds: -The tenant is in rent arrears - Antisocial behaviour - Assault by the tenant on 27 July 2023 (b)An order for rent arrears. (c)Compensation for damage to property as follows: - insulation and roof lining - oven - digging trench in backyard - kitchen skirting - garden planter bed - 3 palm trees - removal of landlord’s chickens (d)Compensation for alteration of garage sensor/key (e)Reimbursement of infringement notice (f)General compensation for petrol cost, financial and mental stress, breach of previous order, tenant taking up landlord personal garage space. (g)Compensation for tenant denying access for inspections.
The landlord withdrew the claim in respect of the palm trees and may file a further application regarding this once she has further evidence.
The onus is on the party who is making an application to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.
I will consider each of the claims in turn commencing with the tenant claims. Tenant claims

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Jacqueline Fletcher claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45, a landlord has responsibilities including that they must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Tenants have a responsibility to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs. See section 40(1)(d) RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to remedy the following issues: - Smell from internal drains resulting from blocked backyard drain - Loose tiles in outside paving - Removal of pigeons nesting in roof cavity - Repair of rangehood
When considering these claims the Tribunal will consider the evidence to support the maintenance issue claimed, if and when the tenant notified the landlord of the problem and what if any action was taken by the landlord to investigate and remedy the matter.
Drainage issues (a)The tenant claimed that there are ongoing problems with drainage at the premises. She stated that there was a smell from the internal drains which she attributes to being caused by a blocked backyard drain. (b)The tenant provided a copy of a text message sent to the landlord dated 17 May 2023 which states “Morning Daisy, I messaged Michael yesterday about the back yard did he mention anything to you? The ground has dried out some more today which is fantastic, I moved dirt away from the house & made a small trench, I don’t want to fill it back in as that won’t fix the problem, it needs some drainage material so the water doesn’t stay trapped in there.” The landlord responded that her husband was trying to find some time to come and look. (c)The tenant sent a 14-day notice to remedy on 11 June 2023 and claimed that the landlord failed to remedy the problem. The tenant produced a report from a MBIE investigator dated 25 July 2023 which included photographs of water in the drain and in the trench dug by the tenant. (d) The landlord claimed that there were no drainage issues at the premises. She stated that the tenant did not contact her with any concerns when the large Auckland flood in January 2023 occurred. The landlord claimed that the tenant did not allow the landlord to investigate in May 2023 as she immediately took action herself by digging a trench alongside the house which allowed water to pool there. The 14-day notice did not include mention of a cracked downpipe. (e) The landlord stated that following the 14-day notice she arranged a contractor to investigate and produced a video of a visit with a contractor on 27 July 2023 where conflict occurred between landlord and tenant as the tenant became upset about the recording taking place. The contractor left. (f) When the matter was adjourned on 14 February 2024 the landlord agreed to arrange a contractor to further investigate the issue. (g) On 15 May I heard evidence from Maverick Johnson of Wedo construction who stated that he has 40 years’ experience in the building industry. He gave evidence that he attended the premises on 16 February 2024 and looked at the ground outside, reviewed the guttering and downpipes. He stated there was a crack to one downpipe which was minor and would not affect discharge. The ground was dry and he saw no evidence of a blocked drain. He stated that although he is not a drainage expert, he was concerned to see that a trench had been dug beside the house as in his building experience this could cause water to gather at the base of the house. He stated that he checked the inside drains, applied water on and off and saw no evidence of leaks, no issues with flow and no build up. (g) The tenant has not produced evidence of the condition of the yard prior to the trench being dug and took unilateral action by digging a trench before a contractor was able to investigate. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has proved the landlord failed to maintain the premises in respect of drainage. (h)Therefore this claim is dismissed. (i)The tenant advised that she has now filled in the trench. If further drainage issues arise the tenant can notify the landlord who then has a responsibility to send a contractor to investigate.
Loose tiles (a) The tenant claimed that there were loose exterior tiles near the ranch slider requiring repair. Photographs of these were provided. The landlord claimed that she had no knowledge of these cracked tiles. There was no evidence provided of notice to the landlord, however, these proceedings serve as notice to the landlord of this maintenance issue. Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that maintenance of the exterior tiles is required and accordingly make a work order for their repair. The work shall be completed by Friday 30 August 2024. An extended period of time is allowed for this due to this being winter season. (b) I decline to order compensation as there is no evidence provided of any loss to the tenant as a result and no evidence of the tenant requesting repair other than in these proceedings.
Removal of pigeons inside roof cavity (a)The tenant provided photographs of the roof cavity and claimed that white marks on the rafters were evidence of birds in the roof. The tenant stated that she had not seen birds come in or out of the roof cavity. (b)The landlord agreed to investigate this at the hearing on 14 February 2024. (c)Mr Johnson gave evidence that he investigated the rook cavity and found that the insulation had been moved but no evidence of birds living in the cavity. (d)I am not satisfied that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence that there are birds living in the roof cavity. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
Rangehood – the tenant claimed that the rangehood was very noisy and not coping, however, did not provide sufficient evidence in respect of this claim. The Healthy Homes Report states that the kitchen rangehood meets the standard. If there is an issue with the extractor fan the tenant can give notice to the landlord to investigate this.

Has the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards?

Jacqueline Fletcher claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
The tenant claimed that the ceiling insulation does not meet the standard. In support of this the tenant provided photographs of the ceiling space with the insulation moved above the garage.
The landlord denies responsibility for this and claims that the insulation is compliant and that the tenant has moved the glass wool batts. The landlord provided a copy of the Healthy Homes Report dated 20 August 2020 prepared by Trust Property Service stating that the insulation is compliant. The tenant disputed the photographs of the insulation provided in the HHS report but provided no evidence to substantiate that these were false.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to insulate.
Jacqueline Fletcher also claimed that there are draft and dampness issues. There was some mention in the MBIE investigation report provided, however, the report also states that the investigator advised the tenant that she was responsible for cleaning the mould suggesting it was not considered to be a property issue. Further in respect of the draft the report stated that one window gap was the result of the tenant breaking in through a window. The tenant claimed that there was a gap under the door to the garage, however, the landlord advised that there was a flap on the front door and the garage door. The Healthy Homes Report provides that the premises are draught free. Having considered the conflicting evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved this claim on the balance of probabilities. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
Jacqueline Fletcher 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 claimed that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises by filming when she came to the premises with a contractor on 27 July 2023 to investigate the drainage issues. She further states that the landlord coming to the premises to access the garage has breached her quiet enjoyment.
Both parties gave extensive evidence about the events of 27 July 2023. The landlord attended with a contractor to investigate the drainage at the tenant’s request. The landlord claimed that the videoing was for the purpose of the investigation. The tenant disputes this and took offence at the videoing. The landlord claims that the tenant assaulted her, the tenant denies this and stated that she tried to hit the landlord’s phone out of her hand. The landlord provided video footage from the visit which begins focussed on the drainage issue but clearly indicates that a disagreement arises between the parties. The landlord verbally claims that the tenant hit her with paper which the tenant denies. This is not visible on camera.
The tenant referred to another incident that took place on 10 January 2024. The landlord gave notice on 8 January 2024 of an inspection to take place on 10 January 2024. The tenant refused the inspection. The landlord went to do the inspection anyway. When she arrived, the tenant refused her access and turned the hose on the landlord. The landlord got back in her car in the driveway and stated that she phoned tenancy services. There was a dispute of evidence between the parties as to how long the landlord was on the property, but it was agreed that for at least 20 minutes of that time the landlord could not leave because the tenant parked behind her. The landlord called the Police who attended and asked the tenant to move her car so the landlord could leave, which she did.
The tenant referred to a further incident on 6 February 2024 when she claimed that the landlord was parked in the road outside her house in a white car watching the house. The landlord denied this. The tenant provided photographs taken of a white car but no evidence to link this to the landlord.
The Tribunal has made an order regarding the landlord’s access to the garage. Since that order the landlord stated that she has accessed the garage considerably less than the times specified in the order and has given notice as required.
The incident regarding the car sitting outside the house is not proved to the required standard.
The incidents that took place on 27 July 2023 and 10 January 2024 relate to the landlord attending the premises for maintenance and an inspection in accordance with notice given. On both occasions it is clear that miscommunication and conflict occurred between the parties and both parties were involved. The issues arose in the context of a difficult relationship between the parties. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the landlord was wholly at fault or that her actions amounted to an intent to harass the tenant. I find that the tenant has failed to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.

Has the landlord charged rent substantially above market rent?

Jacqueline Fletcher claims the landlord is seeking rent in excess of the market rent.
On an application made to it the Tribunal may on being satisfied that the rent payable substantially exceeds market rent, make an order reducing the rent to an amount specified in line with market rent. See section 25 (1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. See section 25 (3) RTA.
The landlord sent the tenant notice on 1 August 2023 increasing the rent to $870.00 per week from 8 October 2023.
The tenant claims this amount substantially exceeds market rent. The Tribunal has found that more than 10 percent above market rent is likely to be a substantial amount. See TT order 4230342.
In support of this claim the tenant provided a copy of the Tenancy Services market rent for the area which records the bonds lodged. This reflects the actual amounts tenants and landlords have contracted for weekly rent. The figures for the six months to June 2023 record a median rent of $745.00 and upper quartile of $880.00. The tenant also provided advertisements for 3-5 bedroom rental properties in the area during August and September 2023 which ranged from $800.00 to $890.00 per week.
The landlord provided a copy of the Tenancy Services Market rent for the area for the six months to October 2023. This recorded the upper quartile weekly rent as $890.00.
Neither of the Tenancy Services market rent figures provided by the parties give the breakdown for different bedroom numbers. It is expected that rent for two- and three-bedroom homes will be nearer to the median. As this is a four- bedroom, two bathroom renovated home it is likely to be nearer to the upper quartile for the overall rent figures.
Having considered the evidence of both parties I find that that the rent of $870.00 is less than the upper quartile amounts provided by each party and on par with the rent for a four-bedroom house in the area in late 2023. Therefore, the rent payable is not substantially above market rent and the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach their duty in respect of the tenancy agreement?

Jacqueline Fletcher claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The obligation then moves to the tenant to sign the agreement.
The landlord forwarded the tenant a signed agreement on 23 August 2022 for the tenancy to commence on 8 October 2022.
On 8 October 2022 the landlord forwarded the tenant a further signed copy of the same tenancy agreement with the Healthy Homes Report attached.
The tenant claimed that she did not sign either agreement. The landlord stated that there was a delay, but the first agreement was returned by the tenant to the landlord on 22 October 2022.
The landlord provided a copy of a message to the tenant dated 22 October 2022 acknowledging receipt of the signed agreement but advising that the earlier copy had been signed and asking her to sign the later copy. This never eventuated.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord provided a written agreement to the tenant and signed this agreement and therefore has not breached their obligations. Landlord claims

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The landlord stated that the tenant owed $8915.00 to 17 May 2024 and provided a rent summary.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must make either a final or conditional termination order. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date.
The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination and offered to pay $130.00 per week towards the arrears. The landlord stated that due to the large arrears this would take too long to repay.
After discussion the Tribunal agreed to wait one week before making an order to allow time for the tenant to pay a lump sum towards the arrears.
The landlord advised on Wednesday 22 May 2024 that the tenant has paid $8000.00 being $870.00 for weekly rent and $7130.00 towards rent arrears and the outstanding rent is now $1785.00. The landlord agrees to a conditional termination order with the balance being repaid at a rate of $130.00 per week.
In light of this lump sum payment I am satisfied the tenant will pay the balance of the debt within the period specified in the order and is unlikely to commit any further relevant breach. I have granted a conditional termination order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As I have considered the termination application pursuant to sections 55 and 56 of the RTA in relation to rent arrears and made a conditional termination order by consent I do not need to consider the other grounds.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage has been caused during the tenancy: - insulation and roof lining - oven - digging trench in backyard - kitchen skirting - garden planter bed - removal of landlord’s chickens
Insulation and roof lining – the landlord claims that the tenant has moved the insulation in the roof. The tenant claimed that the landlord did not fully insulate the roof. The parties have provided photos that each have taken from the manhole in the garage area. No entry inspection photographs have been provided. The photographs in the Healthy Homes Report were taken in August 2022. As both parties have access to the garage and have given conflicting evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible.
Oven – the oven stopped working early in the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for this, however, no evidence of the damage claimed or an electrician’s report was provided to the hearing. The landlord replaced the oven in 2023. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
Digging trench in backyard – the tenant confirmed that she dug a trench in the back yard which she believed was helping with drainage. The landlord did not obtain a quote for the cost of repair but submitted an online search for an hourly rate for the work. This does not assist the Tribunal with the actual cost to remedy. The tenant advised on 15 May 2024 that the trench has now been filled in and provided photographs confirming this. As the hole has now been filled in no amount to remedy will be ordered.
Kitchen skirting – the landlord sought $40.00 to replace a small piece of kitchen skirting. The tenant denied damaging this. The landlord did not provide a copy of an entry photo showing the condition of the skirting at the commencement of the tenancy. No quote was provided for the repair. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim.
Garden planter bed – the landlord claimed that the tenant removed a raised garden planter. The landlord provided photographs of the planter and of the space where it is now missing. The landlord did not have evidence of the size of the planter or the exact cost to replace. The tenant claimed that the planter fell apart due to wear and tear. She provided a photograph showing part of the boards still in the ground and the rotten boards that she claimed have come apart. The Tribunal finds that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that this damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
Chickens – the landlord claims that the tenant has removed three chickens that were left on the property. There is no mention in the tenancy agreement, but the landlord provided copies of text messages where the tenant agreed to look after the landlord’s chickens. The tenant messaged the landlord and stated that the chickens were attracting pigeons and she did not want to care for them any longer. The landlord agreed to rehome them. The tenant claimed that the landlord was slow in finding a new home for the chickens, so she arranged for them to be rehomed. The landlord sent a letter to the tenant in January 2023 seeking payment of $19.50 per chicken and now seeks $88.00 per chicken. The tenancy agreement does not cover arrangements between parties for handing over care of animals. This arrangement between the parties is separate to the tenancy agreement and is not covered by the RTA. Therefore, no order will be made in respect of the chickens.

The landlord claims that the tenant altered the garage door access without consent.
Section 46 of the RTA states “Neither the landlord nor the tenant shall alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out.”
Failure to comply without reasonable excuse, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The tenant agreed that she disabled the garage door opener. She states that she did this by turning off the power. The landlord was unable to access the garage as ordered by consent in the Tribunal order dated 26 May 2023.
The tenant did not provide a reasonable excuse for this action, therefore, the tenant has committed an unlawful act intentionally.
The Tribunal may order exemplary damages having considered the effect on the other party and the public interest. The effect on the landlord was to deny access to an agreed shared space. It is in the interests of the public that parties respect orders of the Tribunal. Having considered the factors in this case including the nature of this breach and the unusual circumstances of the arrangement between the parties regarding the garage. The Tribunal orders the tenant to pay the sum of $100.00 in exemplary damages. Compensation
Reimbursement of infringement notice - The landlord seeks reimbursement of a speeding ticket that she was given on 10 January 2024 after she left the premises. She claims that she was stressed and in a hurry after being delayed at the premises. The landlord is responsible for her responses and driving and I am not persuaded to order the tenant to pay this amount.
The landlord also sought general compensation for petrol cost, financial and mental stress, breach of previous order and tenant taking up landlord personal garage space. As the Tribunal has declined the landlord claims with the exception of the conditional termination and alteration of garage access and has already made orders in respect of these, no further money orders will be made. Whilst the Tribunal recognises that the relationship between landlord and tenant in this case has been stressful for both parties, there is no provision in the RTA for quiet enjoyment for landlords. In this case no compensation is awarded to either party.

Did the tenant deny access for inspections?

The landlord claimed that the tenant did not allow entry to the premises for an inspection on 10 January 2024 after being given the correct notice.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy 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.
The landlord seeks an order allowing the landlord access to the premises.
The tenant agreed that she denied the landlord access for the inspection and stated that entry had been denied because following an inspection a year earlier she had received a letter with a long list of action points that she considered trivial and she did not wish this to happen again.
Tenants must allow landlords to inspect the premises and do maintenance as required upon giving proper notice. Landlords must respect tenants’ rights to quiet enjoyment without unreasonable interference.
The Tribunal may make an order in the nature of a declaration, whether as to the status for the purposes of this Act of any premises or of any agreement or purported agreement, or as to the rights or obligations of any party, or otherwise: See section 78(1)(a) RTA.
The Tribunal makes a declaration that the tenant must allow the landlord access to the premises if written notice is given in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the RTA. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no order for reimbursement of either parties’ filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706529 — Rent arrears at 13 Hawkley Close, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706529 — Rent arrears at 13 Hawkley Close, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Has the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards?

Has the landlord charged rent substantially above market rent?

Did the landlord breach their duty in respect of the tenancy agreement?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant deny access for inspections?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Has the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards?

Has the landlord charged rent substantially above market rent?

Did the landlord breach their duty in respect of the tenancy agreement?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant deny access for inspections?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Has the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards?

Has the landlord charged rent substantially above market rent?

Did the landlord breach their duty in respect of the tenancy agreement?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant alter the garage lock or similar device without consent?

Did the tenant deny access for inspections?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 of the RTA?

Has the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards?

Has the landlord charged rent substantially above market rent?

Did the landlord breach their duty in respect of the tenancy agreement?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant alter the garage lock or similar device without consent?

Did the tenant deny access for inspections?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions