What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4713290?

The tribunal order states: Brian Stephen Hammond must pay Suzanne Van Vliet as trustee of the S.V.V.

How much money was awarded in case 4713290?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of tenant’s qui…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $232.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; dismantled wardrobes (less depreciat…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Walls (Removal Of Glue: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: bedroom curtain…: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $28.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713290?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897309-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4713290?

The tribunal order states: Brian Stephen Hammond must pay Suzanne Van Vliet as trustee of the S.V.V.

How much money was awarded in case 4713290?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of tenant’s qui…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $232.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; dismantled wardrobes (less depreciat…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Walls (Removal Of Glue: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: bedroom curtain…: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $28.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713290?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897309-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34A Third View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713290 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713290 — net $4,278.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings: lounge curtains (insurance excess	$650.00		Replace furnishings: lounge curtains (insurance excess
Replace furnishings: bedroom curtains (insurance	$650.00		Replace furnishings: bedroom curtains (insurance
Repairs: damaged rangeslider lock (insurance excess	$650.00		Repairs: damaged rangeslider lock (insurance excess
Repairs: attic wall and floor (insurance excess	$650.00		Repairs: attic wall and floor (insurance excess
Repairs: dismantled wardrobes (less depreciation	$1,000.00		Repairs: dismantled wardrobes (less depreciation
Repairs: walls (removal of glue	$517.50		Repairs: walls (removal of glue
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: ceiling lighting	$232.70		Electrical fittings replacement/repair: ceiling lighting
Replace smoke alarm	$28.08		Replace smoke alarm
Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard	$200.00		Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard
Compensation: breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment		$300.00	breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment
Total award	$4,578.28	$300.00
Net award	$4,278.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,278.28

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713290 — net $4,278.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Replace furnishings: lounge curtains (insurance excess

$650.00

Replace furnishings: lounge curtains (insurance excess

Replace furnishings: bedroom curtains (insurance

$650.00

Replace furnishings: bedroom curtains (insurance

Repairs: damaged rangeslider lock (insurance excess

$650.00

Repairs: damaged rangeslider lock (insurance excess

Repairs: attic wall and floor (insurance excess

$650.00

Repairs: attic wall and floor (insurance excess

Repairs: dismantled wardrobes (less depreciation

$1,000.00

Repairs: dismantled wardrobes (less depreciation

Repairs: walls (removal of glue

$517.50

Repairs: walls (removal of glue

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: ceiling lighting

$232.70

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: ceiling lighting

Replace smoke alarm

$28.08

Replace smoke alarm

Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard

$200.00

Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard

Compensation: breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment

$300.00

breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment

Total award

$4,578.28

$300.00

Net award

$4,278.28

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$4,278.28

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 6 March, 27 May and 30 September 2024.

The tenant vacated on 29 October 2023.

The tenant sought: a. Damages for harassment and/or breach of their quiet enjoyment in relation to an incident which occurred 2 weeks prior to the tenant vacating. b. Exemplary damages for unlawful termination of the tenancy by the landlord.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

I first address the tenant’s claims. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

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.

Two weeks before the tenancy ended, the landlord took issue with the tenant and his guests parking their vehicles on the driveway. The parties had a verbal disagreement before the landlord approached the tenant and filmed the tenant and his guests which interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace and quiet enjoyment at the premises.

I consider that the landlord has breached the quiet enjoyment of the tenant’s use of the premises on that occasion when the landlord filmed the incident. I find that an award of general damages in favour of the tenant of $300.00 appropriate for that breach of quiet enjoyment.

However, I do not consider that the landlord had interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in circumstances that amount to harassment. Consequently, I make no award of exemplary damages against the landlord.

Has the landlord issued an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy?

On 21 September 2023, the landlord issued the tenant with 63 days’ notice to end the tenancy on grounds that a family member will be residing at the premises. This landlord had also issued various breach notices to the tenant.

The tenant submits that the landlord has issued an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy. Section 60AA RTA states that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice.

On the face of it, the landlord’s 63 days’ notice appears to be at odds with the section 56 breach notices issued to the tenant.

However, I accept that landlord’s evidence that their family member moved into the premises after the tenancy ended. At the time of issuance of the notice, the landlord’s cousin was in the process of selling her home and the landlord had planned to house the cousin.

Accordingly, I consider that the grounds for termination under section 51(1)(a) RTA have been met because the landlord required the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for a member of the owner’s family.

Consequently, the landlord has not issued an invalid notice and the tenant’s claim couched under section 60AA RTA fails.

I now address the landlord’s claims for compensation.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The smoke alarm had to be replaced by the landlord.

The cleaning costs ordered to a reasonably clean and tidy standard are proved.

Glue had to be removed from the walls.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) lounge curtains (insurance excess) b) bedroom curtains (insurance excess) c) rangeslider lock (insurance excess) d) attic wall and floor (insurance excess) e) dismantled wardrobes f) ceiling lighting

Considering the evidence adduced by the parties, I find the above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The tenant's liability on the damaged curtains, ranchslider lock and attic floor and wall is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess as set out in the table above.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation on the wardrobe repairs. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Only the amount ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713290 — net $4,278.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings: lounge curtains (insurance excess	$650.00		Replace furnishings: lounge curtains (insurance excess
Replace furnishings: bedroom curtains (insurance	$650.00		Replace furnishings: bedroom curtains (insurance
Repairs: damaged rangeslider lock (insurance excess	$650.00		Repairs: damaged rangeslider lock (insurance excess
Repairs: attic wall and floor (insurance excess	$650.00		Repairs: attic wall and floor (insurance excess
Repairs: dismantled wardrobes (less depreciation	$1,000.00		Repairs: dismantled wardrobes (less depreciation
Repairs: walls (removal of glue	$517.50		Repairs: walls (removal of glue
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: ceiling lighting	$232.70		Electrical fittings replacement/repair: ceiling lighting
Replace smoke alarm	$28.08		Replace smoke alarm
Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard	$200.00		Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard
Compensation: breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment		$300.00	breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment
Total award	$4,578.28	$300.00
Net award	$4,278.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,278.28

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713290 — net $4,278.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Replace furnishings: lounge curtains (insurance excess

$650.00

Replace furnishings: lounge curtains (insurance excess

Replace furnishings: bedroom curtains (insurance

$650.00

Replace furnishings: bedroom curtains (insurance

Repairs: damaged rangeslider lock (insurance excess

$650.00

Repairs: damaged rangeslider lock (insurance excess

Repairs: attic wall and floor (insurance excess

$650.00

Repairs: attic wall and floor (insurance excess

Repairs: dismantled wardrobes (less depreciation

$1,000.00

Repairs: dismantled wardrobes (less depreciation

Repairs: walls (removal of glue

$517.50

Repairs: walls (removal of glue

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: ceiling lighting

$232.70

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: ceiling lighting

Replace smoke alarm

$28.08

Replace smoke alarm

Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard

$200.00

Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard

Compensation: breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment

$300.00

breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment

Total award

$4,578.28

$300.00

Net award

$4,278.28

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$4,278.28

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 6 March, 27 May and 30 September 2024.

The tenant vacated on 29 October 2023.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

I first address the tenant’s claims. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

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.

Has the landlord issued an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy?

On the face of it, the landlord’s 63 days’ notice appears to be at odds with the section 56 breach notices issued to the tenant.

Consequently, the landlord has not issued an invalid notice and the tenant’s claim couched under section 60AA RTA fails.

I now address the landlord’s claims for compensation.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The smoke alarm had to be replaced by the landlord.

The cleaning costs ordered to a reasonably clean and tidy standard are proved.

Glue had to be removed from the walls.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Considering the evidence adduced by the parties, I find the above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The tenant's liability on the damaged curtains, ranchslider lock and attic floor and wall is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess as set out in the table above.

Only the amount ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713290 — Property damage at 34A Third View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713290 — Property damage at 34A Third View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord issued an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord issued an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions