What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4830619?

The tribunal order states: Leah Oakes must pay Mgmt Market Limited Acting Agent For Zhaoming Chu

How much money was awarded in case 4830619?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $24,905.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,764.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4830619?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4830619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10737134-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4830619?

The tribunal order states: Leah Oakes must pay Mgmt Market Limited Acting Agent For Zhaoming Chu

How much money was awarded in case 4830619?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $24,905.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,764.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4830619?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4830619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10737134-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

97A Sandspit Road, Shelly Park, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4830619 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4830619 — net $23,929.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12/02/2024	$24,905.40		Rent arrears to 12/02/2024
Water rates	$1,764.09		Water rates
Rubbish removal	$350.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation for breach of section 45		$1,500.00	Compensation for breach of section 45
Total award	$27,019.49	$1,500.00
Net award	$23,929.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$23,929.49

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4830619 — net $23,929.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12/02/2024	$24,905.40		Rent arrears to 12/02/2024
Water rates	$1,764.09		Water rates
Rubbish removal	$350.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation for breach of section 45		$1,500.00	Compensation for breach of section 45
Total award	$27,019.49	$1,500.00
Net award	$23,929.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$23,929.49

Order

Leah Oakes must pay Mgmt Market Limited Acting Agent For Zhaoming Chu $23,929.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,590.00 (5245161-007) to Mgmt Market Limited Acting Agent For Zhaoming Chu immediately.
Leah Oakes’s claim for compensation due to a breach of her quiet enjoyment of the premises is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter arises out of a tenancy agreement for the rented premises situated at 97A Sandpit Road, Shelly Park, Auckland. The tenancy agreement was entered into by Ms Oakes (“the Tenant”) and MGMT Market Ltd agent for Zhaoming Chu (“the Landlord”). This was a 10 year tenancy commencing on 3 February 2024 and ending on 12 February 2024. The rent was $620.00 per week and the bond was $1,590.00.
Both parties have filed an application with the Tribunal.
The landlord claims rent arrears $24,905.40, water bills $1,764.09 and compensation for rubbish removal $350.00 following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has filed a counter claim seeking compensation of $23,000.00 and exemplary damages alleging the landlord breaching various obligations including: • The landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair • The landlord’s duty not to cause interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises
Before I consider the specific issues, I begin by noting that the onus or burden of proving a particular claim, rests with the party who is making that claim. In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” or the level of evidence required is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the parties must prove with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not” correct.
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.
While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision. The landlord’s application

Was there rent arrears and water charges owing at the end of the tenancy?

A tenant must pay rent as and when it falls due and is responsible for water charges incurred during the tenancy on the basis of consumption (see sections 40 and 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA”)).

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) RTA.
The landlord proved on the evidence that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy,
The amount ordered is proved. The tenant’s application

Did the landlord breach their obligation to maintain the premises?

Under section 45 of the RTA, the landlord is required to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45(1)(b)) and ensure compliance with building and health and safety regulations (see section 45(1)(c)). If the landlord fails to address a defect after being notified, this can be considered a breach of their obligations.
Key points: •The landlord must investigate and repair defects in a timely manner, depending on the severity of the issue. •The tenant must inform the landlord of any defects under section 40(1)(d) and give them reasonable time to fix the issue. •Even if the tenant was aware of the condition at the start of the tenancy, the landlord is still responsible for necessary repairs. •If repairs are inadequate, non-compliant, or unsafe, it constitutes a breach. •Breaches of this obligation can result in exemplary damages up to $7,200 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claims that during her 10-year tenancy, the landlord did not address persistent flooding in her double garage, located at the bottom of a sloping driveway. The drainage gate across the garage doorway failed to prevent flooding during heavy rain, damaging her stored furniture and belongings. She repeatedly reported the problem to the landlord from the first year of her tenancy, but was informed that fixing it would cost $8,000.00, which the owner refused to cover. She was instructed to clear debris from the drainage regularly, but flooding persisted despite her efforts.
The tenant relied on support letters from Ms Catherine Kelland and Ms Charlotte Watson. Ms Kelland was her neighbour and had built the house at 97A Sandpit Road, Shelly Park, in 1985. In her statement, Ms Kelland stated: My name is Cathrine Kelland and I have been a neighbour of Leah’s at above address for 10 years. I live at 95 Sandspit Road, Shelly Park. During that time, we have spoken lengthily about the flooding going straight into the garage. It has been an issue from the start of her tenancy and even before that. I personally built this house in 1985 and when sold to the new owners who built the garage they did not heed to advice to build the garage differently since we knew that naturally the water would flow down the driveway into the space below which includes the garage. It floods and I have witnessed damage to Leah’s furniture and more that has been stored there for 10 years with silt from the wate flooding covering the entire garage all the way to the back of the garage. I can comment personally since we have become great friends that this has caused Leah a lot of anguish. Leah has not had proper use of this space throughout her tenancy. I live next door and can see deterioration of her items stored in the garage. She rented this for use of the double garage and the ‘studio’ behind which she has not been able to use. There is a storm pipe from the right hand side of the garage if cleared would enable the water to flow to the Storm water drain and I am aware this has not been done by the current owners. Nothing for 10 years. I build this home I know what could and should have been done. I am also aware the council had visited and told Leah that it is the landlords issue. They are responsible to fix it.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages, arguing that the rent was too high given the loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience due to the premises' failure to meet the reasonable repair standard under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
In response, the landlord denies any liability to the tenant. The landlord says the drains were checked by a drainlayer in 2015 and referred to an email dated 14 August 2015 from the owner to the tenant confirming this. The email stated: I have got a drainlayer check the drain and it is perfectly working, because of fallen leaf sand flushed from the long driveway blocked channel drain, so you need to general clean up leaf and sand around channel drain to avoid water flush into garage. Due to rent rising up in the area and you cannot maintain the channel. I can offer that you do not use the garage and keep the same rent rate.
The landlord stated that the tenant agreed not to use the garage in exchange for keeping the rent unchanged. Although the rent was increased once, it remained below the market rate of $650.00-$700.00.
The tenant emphasised that she rented the property specifically to use the garage and did not agree to the owner's offer.
Pipes and drains are a maintenance issue, the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair includes addressing drainage issues that lead to flooding. The failure to repair the drainage system, despite being aware of the issue, constitutes a breach of this obligation.
The tenant provided evidence, including statements, indicating that the flooding was a long-standing issue that had not been effectively addressed. The landlord's assertion that the drains were checked by a drainlayer in 2015 is unsupported by an invoice or other proof of repair. Additionally, the landlord’s directive to regularly clear debris did not resolve the fundamental issue of flooding.
The tenant’s rights under the RTA cannot be waived. The landlord’s offer to allow the tenant not to use the garage while keeping the rent unchanged does not absolve them of their maintenance obligations. Nor does the fact that the rent was below market rent negate the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises in reasonable repair. The tenant is entitled to a property that meets reasonable standards of repair and maintenance.
I find the landlord was in breach of their duty under section 45 RTA by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I turn to the tenant’s claim for compensation.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is subject to the Limitation Act 2010, confining compensation to the last 6 years of the tenancy. The has an impact on the compensation claimed.
The tenant is only entitled to compensation if she can demonstrate that she has been inconvenienced by the breach of duty to maintain the premises or has suffered a loss of amenity. Furthermore, there is no punitive element to the award of compensation.
In assessing the tenant’s loss, the Tribunal takes into account the reasonableness of the conduct of the parties and what attempts have been made by the tenant (the applicant) to mitigate (reduce) the amounts claimed. A party is not entitled to damage for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered.
In this case, the tenant could have mitigated (or reduced) her loss (the inconvenience suffered by her as a result of the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in relation to the flooding issue in the garage within a reasonable timeframe) by taking steps to enforce her legal rights under the RTA as soon as it became apparent to her that her landlord was not going to arrange the necessary repairs.
The failure by the tenant to seek to enforce her rights in the Tribunal earlier does not absolve the landlord’s duty to ensure the premises were maintained in a reasonable condition during the tenancy. However, the tenant’s failure to act to enforce her rights is a relevant consideration in determining the amount of compensation to which the tenant may be entitled.
Having said that, there was clearly a loss of amenity. The tenant paid rent and in return expected a garage that was clean and dry and able to be fully utilised. The effect of the landlord’s breach in dealing with the flooding issue in the garage has affected the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises.
However, I consider the tenant’s claim for compensation in the circumstances excessive. Given my above findings and the factors impacting on the claim for compensation, the Tribunal considers a broad-brush award of compensation is appropriate and accordingly awards compensation to the tenant in the sum of $1500.00.
I am unable to consider additional compensation for the tenant’s damaged and contaminated belongings caused by flooding in the garage, as there is insufficient evidence presented to the Tribunal.
Exemplary damages for the unlawful act of a landlord’s breach of its maintenance obligations is barred, as no application for exemplary damages can be made 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act (section 109(2) RTA). The flooding issue was brought to the landlord’s attention in the tenant’s first year of their tenancy. The tenant explained that although she recalled the drainage had been attended to once or twice, no further maintenance was undertaken. This application was made well outside the required 12 months from commission of the offence within which to bring the claim. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord interfere with tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises?
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) RTA.
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.
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) RTA 1986.
The Landlord must provide a date, and enter between the hours of 8am and 7pm, but need not provide an exact time, or knock on the door to let a Tenant know they are there, though this would be prudent in most cases. 18. 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 RTA.
The tenant said the landlord frequently visited the property unannounced or arranged for contractors without proper notice, which she found intrusive and stressful, exacerbating her anxiety. The situation became particularly distressing during her move-out.
The tenant explained that the initial moving company cancelled two weeks before the move. She booked another company for February 10, but they had scheduling errors, forcing her to rebook for February 12 at 9 a.m. During this time, the property manager showed up unannounced and she didn’t want her there. But didn’t want to make it harder by asking her to leave. Meanwhile her friends who were to help her pack cancelled so she was in a real state of anxiety which is a medical condition she suffers from. She believes the property manager was very aware of this.
On February 12, the movers were late. The property manager arrived again unannounced, tried to help pack, and called the movers despite being told not to. The tenant was frustrated but stayed quiet as she was unsure of her rights. When the movers finally arrived, the property manager proceeded to interfere with the process. As a result of this, the tenant says she had no idea of what was where and had ended up with none of the items she wanted to take with her housesitting.
Having contacted Tenancy services, the tenant was informed that the property manager could not enter without consent, but she returned to find the property manager still packing her belongings. Despite the tenant's demands for her to leave, the property manager continued to pack and photograph items, leading to a confrontation.
The tenant tried to stop the property manager from photographing her belongings, which led to a physical altercation. The police were contacted. The property manager, after refusing to leave and calling someone, eventually stayed outside the house, but the tenant still felt intimidated by her. The tenant, overwhelmed and traumatised, eventually allowed the property manager to continue packing.
In response, the property manager stated that all visits to the premises were for legitimate tenancy-related reasons and denied attending or arranging for contractors without the tenant’s consent. She disputed the tenant’s account of the move-out events, explaining that the property had been sold with a settlement date of February 12 (later moved to February 13). She emphasised that it was critical for the tenant to move out on time for the owner to avoid late fees. The property manager acknowledged contacting the moving company to explain the settlement date and put them on notice that any late fees would be passed on to them. She claimed she was just trying to assist the tenant, who appeared stressed and overwhelmed. Although she admitted to feeling stressed herself and having disagreements with the tenant, she denied hitting or pushing the tenant.
Advance notice must be given of any inspections or intention to enter the premises in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act (see section 48 RTA). Even if the landlord visited unannounced or arranged for contractors with little or no notice, the tenant could have declined access and request proper notice. I am not persuaded that there has been a breach of the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises by the landlord, if the tenant had voluntarily allowed access and did not require them to leave, especially if the landlord believed they had consent. The evidence does not show the landlord visited the property excessively or without good reason.
Regarding the move-out events, the Tribunal was faced with conflicting accounts and insufficient evidence, so this aspect of the claim was not proved to the required standard.
On balance, I am not persuaded that the landlord/property manager’s behaviour has the requisite degree of, seriousness as to constitute harassment of the tenant. “Harassment” is by nature a course of conduct designed and calculated to distress or wear down the victim. I find the evidence does not point to conduct in the nature of harassment. For the most part, I accept the relationship between the parties was largely amicable but broke down towards the end. Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages in this respect is dismissed. Filing fee
I make no order for the filing fee as both parties have enjoyed a degree of success. Suppression order
The landlord does not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression.
The Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party who has “substantially succeeded” in the proceedings. The tenant has been successful in part, but she has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
The tenant seeks name suppression as she believes she may be disadvantaged for future rentals and due to sensitive nature of her personal circumstances.
The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Therefore, I will not grant name suppression in this instance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4830619 — Rent arrears at 97A Sandspit Road, Shelly Park, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4830619 — Rent arrears at 97A Sandspit Road, Shelly Park, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there rent arrears and water charges owing at the end of the tenancy?

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

Did the landlord breach their obligation to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there rent arrears and water charges owing at the end of the tenancy?

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

Did the landlord breach their obligation to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions