What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4835085?

The tribunal order states: Madeleine Ann Fee must pay Karen Ann Goffe and Rama Goffe $589.89

How much money was awarded in case 4835085?

Compensation: Lock (As Agreed: $69.45 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4835085?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4835085?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10417605-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4835085?

The tribunal order states: Madeleine Ann Fee must pay Karen Ann Goffe and Rama Goffe $589.89

How much money was awarded in case 4835085?

Compensation: Lock (As Agreed: $69.45 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4835085?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4835085?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10417605-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Barwells Road, Rangiora, RD 2 Rangiora, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4835085 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4835085 — net $589.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lock (as agreed	$69.45	lock (as agreed
Damages	$500.00	Damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$589.89
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$589.89

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4835085 — net $589.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lock (as agreed	$69.45	lock (as agreed
Damages	$500.00	Damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$589.89
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$589.89

Order

Madeleine Ann Fee must pay Karen Ann Goffe and Rama Goffe $589.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The applicant’s other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5756182-003) to Karen Ann Goffe and Rama Goffe immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy began in March 2019 at was current at the time this application was filed but, in the meantime, the tenants have found alternative accommodation and the tenancy has ended.
The tenants provided the Tribunal with a copy of the agreement which they acknowledged was incomplete.
The tenancy agreement provided by the landlord included four additional typed pages (beginning, “Welcome to 26 Barwells Rd, Loburn”) specifically dealing with the property and particularly its rural nature.
These pages are unsigned, and it is not clear whether they were provided to the tenants at the time of signing or later, but the signed tenancy agreement includes a clause which reads, “[r]efer to the information document for tenants at 26 Barwells Rd, Loburn.”
The additional pages provide information as to how to contact the landlord and how rent is to be paid as well as general information about the property.
Relevant to this hearing are paragraphs relating to water, particularly the water tank and pump located beside the house, and electricity which is described as “on the farm power supply [with a] Meter box on the side of the house”.
A further paragraph says, “[i]nternet is included, and a landline phone which works via the internet can be provided if needed.”
The relationships between the parties deteriorated from late 2022. At that time the tenants asked the landlord to give required notice to come on to the property and, a few days later, advised that they would be looking for new accommodation at some unspecified future date.
A large number of issues were raised in the application and at the hearing.
Although this information can help with an overall understanding of the tenancy, some issues, such as work the tenants allegedly did on the landlord’s property without pay, are not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Other claims, (such as ‘false accusations’ and ‘broken promises’) have not been tied to a specific breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) so no damages can be awarded in relation to these general allegations. Compensation for lock replacement and smoke alarms
The tenant gave evidence that a door lock mechanism had broken during the tenancy and was replaced by the tenant at their own cost.
Although the landlord had not been told that the lock had been changed (as required by the Act) and had not been asked to fix it or pay for it, she nevertheless agreed to compensate the tenants for this cost accepting that the lock had been replaced at their expense.
The amount of the lock replacement, being $69.45 is ordered as agreed.
The tenants also gave evidence that the smoke alarms started beeping and one fell down during the tenancy. The tenants had replaced these at their own cost.
It later became apparent that the detectors had been fitted with non-complying batteries and the tenants accepted that they had installed the detectors and the batteries themselves not being aware that they did not comply with the requirements.
The landlord gave evidence that the smoke detectors had been replaced just prior to this tenancy commencing and that she had no knowledge that they had been replaced by the tenants. She said the smoke detectors she had fitted were new and compliant and denied the tenants claim for the replacement smoke detectors.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to what, if anything, was wrong with the original detectors or if they needed to be replaced. The claim for $28.08 is not proved and is dismissed. Alleged unlawful acts and related compensation and damages
The tenants made a number of claims for breaches that are considered unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded. Retaliatory notice
On 10 February 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 12 May 2024. The notice was given on the basis that the landlord was to commence extensive renovations. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory and wanted the notice declared of no effect.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord (see section 54(1) of the Act).
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 under section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The issues that the tenants say the landlord was retaliating to occurred from the initial deterioration of the relationship around late 2022.
There were a number of separate issues raised at that time. Some related directly to the tenancy and some did not. Those that did included issues around power, phone and internet supply and entering the property with incorrect or no notice.
These matters came to a head in late 2022 when the relationship and any communication became very strained and difficult.
It is difficult to draw a causal connection between possible breaches of the Act over twelve months earlier and this notice. I acknowledge that the general deterioration of the relationship may have partly motivated the landlord to decide to complete the renovations at this time, but this is at least a year after the relationship initially soured.
Both parties gave evidence in relation to a new kitchen that was to be installed.
The landlord said she had bought a second-hand kitchen as the tenant had requested new cupboards in the kitchen. She had planned to install it with the tenants in place but had decided that would be impractical when a proposed bathroom improvement had not been able to go ahead.
The tenants had understood that the kitchen was being installed during their occupation and had removed kitchen items in preparation for the work. They had heard nothing from the landlord so had put everything back.
The landlord gave evidence that she had never asked the tenants to remove their kitchen items.
The landlord also gave evidence that she had to complete work to comply with the Healthy Homes requirements. This was confirmed by a statement from an Investigator at the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team (TCIT) who had attended the property at the tenant’s request after the landlord’s notice had been issued.
The landlord gave further evidence that she had already commenced some work on the property since the tenancy ended, that it was progressing and that the property remained untenanted.
It is accepted that the landlord had purchased a new kitchen with a view to having it installed in the property. The tenants had told the landlord some time before that they had intended to look for new accommodation, so it is perhaps understandable, given the general breakdown in the relationship, that the landlord preferred to wait until the tenants left before progressing these improvements which, to my mind, would be considered extensive.
It is also acknowledged that the landlord had work to do on the property to make it compliant under the Healthy Homes rules as confirmed by the Compliance Team.
The tenants provided a letter from another person who lived at a separate property owned by the Landlord. This letter implies that the landlord promised these tenants that they could live at the property. The conversation happened sometime after the notice was given and the landlord agreed that she had taken them past this property as they had expressed interest in taking the tenancy after the renovations were completed.
In assessing all of the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the notice was retaliatory. The breakdown in the relationship had been occurring over a very long period and there is no particular power exercised or proposed by the tenant which clearly precedes the notice. Extensive renovations were planned and the landlord had purchased a kitchen some time earlier in anticipation of these renovations so the notice itself is lawful.
In any case, the remedy provided by the Act is to declare the notice of no effect and as the tenants have already moved (about one month before the notice period ended) this is no longer appropriate.
I find that no unlawful act exists in relation to the giving of this notice and no compensation or damages can or should be awarded.
Karen Ann Goffe and Rama Goffe claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance under section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant had advised the landlord in late 2022 that she was not to enter the property without reasonable notice.
The landlord claimed that she had never entered the house unless she was invited.
She said that she occasionally entered the grounds to complete work on the pump or other areas. Evidence was provided to the Tribunal to support the landlord’s claim that she had advised the tenants if she had to enter the (outside) premises to complete tasks when they were away as she knew they would see her on the security camera.
There was no specific evidence provide to show that the landlord had entered the house without notice or uninvited on any occasion.
A letter was provided by other tenants to say that the landlord had been seen “watching” these tenants from outside their premises.
The landlord confirmed that she was often near the tenant’s property as her land surrounded it and she had to tend to her farm or orchard work.
There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the landlord breached her obligations in relation to entry to the premise so no damages can or should be awarded.
Karen Ann Goffe and Rama Goffe claim the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone or other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out under section 45(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00 under section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Many of the problems between the parties seems to stem from the lack of proper information provided by the landlord in relation to the power to the premises.
The agreement explained that the power was supplied as detailed in paragraph 8 above. There was a meter box on the house which should have made any power usage issues straightforward.
The landlord said she provided the tenants with a copy of their “line” from the farm power bill that related to their property each month and specified the amount due.
The records provided to the Tribunal in relation to power were far from ideal. It was difficult to determine how much power the tenants were responsible for as the amounts the landlord requested bore little resemblance to the amount charged to the tenants’ property as evidenced by their ‘line’ in the power account. It is no wonder the tenants were confused and queried the amounts.
When no explanation was provided by the landlord the tenants went directly to the landlord’s power company. The landlord considered that this undermined the electricity supply to her whole farm and the relationship seemed to deteriorate badly from there.
The landlord provided incomplete and unhelpful information to the tenants in relation to power and it is understandable that they became frustrated about this.
Additionally, the water pump on the premises was connected to the power account paid by these tenants and the tenants also queried this as they could hear the pump going when they were not running water.
The landlord said in the hearing that the pump also fed water to another house on the property but that she allowed for that when billing the tenants. She indicated that this explained why the amounts she requested from the tenants were different from the amounts billed by the power company.
She also indicated that the tenants had underpaid power by $1,763.10 over the course of the tenancy partly because of her reductions to take account of the issue with the pump.
It does appear as if any miscalculation or poor record keeping has worked out in the tenants’ favour. The tenants claimed compensation of $528.00 over the period of the tenancy for estimated power used to pump water to the other house.
The landlord’s records, although not easy to decipher, do show that the tenants paid $1,763.10 less than the total amount billed for this address over the tenancy period.
No additional payment is ordered as it seems, in her own way, the landlord did account for this although she would have been much better to have clearly and openly explained this to the tenants at the beginning of the tenancy and to have provided a clear record each month of amounts due, paid, and any reduction to account for the pump issue.
No exemplary damages are appropriate as the power supply itself was never interfered with.
The initial tenancy agreement specified that internet was included in the weekly rent. Both parties agreed that this was the case.
The landlord says initially internet access was restricted to 40GB for each property, but the tenant claimed not to have been aware that was the case.
The landlord gave evidence that during covid internet use had climbed dramatically but she had continued to absorb the added cost for some time. She did not communicate this to the tenant at the time.
In February 2023, the landlord emailed the tenant with a “60 day” notice which provided various options for the continuation of internet access. This was said to be due to the fact that rural internet access had improved over the years, and separate access could now be provided for all addresses on the farm property.
At this time the landlord advised that the tenants’ internet cost $105.00 per month. Various options were suggested but all of these meant that the internet was no longer to be included in the weekly rent and needed to be paid separately by the tenants themselves.
Essentially, this is a rent increase. The tenants had been getting internet for no extra cost and now they were to pay an extra monthly amount for internet with no corresponding reduction in rent.
The tenants were understandably upset by this. They were concerned that their internet was going to be disconnected (which would have also disconnected the ‘landline’ phone which worked via the internet).
Just prior to the end of the 60-day period they contacted the landlord by email to express their views and draw the landlord’s attention to the tenancy agreement which clearly included internet.
At the end of the email, they offered “out of good faith” to pay an additional $15 per week on top of their rent to continue with the internet as it then was. This rent increase was offered, and the money was accepted by the landlord although she pointed out that it did not cover the total cost of the internet.
As it transpired, the adjustments necessary to put the premises on a separate internet account meant that the phone that the tenants referred to as a landline was not able to be continued. There was some disagreement about why this was or if it was correct, but the landlord gave evidence that she provided the tenants with a cell phone to compensate for this loss.
The tenants were distressed at the loss of this phone particularly as Mrs Goffe suffers health conditions and felt more vulnerable without this phone line.
Although the tenants clearly felt that they had no option but to agree or negotiate with the landlord to prevent their internet being disconnected, I do not believe that this was the landlord’s intention.
I consider that, as with all matters relating to this case, the landlord has communicated poorly with the tenants, but I do not find that she intentionally intended to interfere with or remove the supply of internet services. She simply wanted to change the way the services were billed.
When the tenant suggested the additional $15.00 per week the landlord accepted it and completed the required work to have the separate internet supply delivered to the premises.
Both parties thought that the wifi ‘landline’ would remain in place, but it was not able to be continued.
The landlord gave evidence that she tried to arrange for this service to continue and, when it couldn’t be done, she supplied the tenant with a cell phone. I do not find any evidence of an intention to deprive them of this service on her part.
However, the internet, and accompanying phone, had been included in the rent and the appropriate way for the landlord to deal with increased cost was to raise the rent, with the required notice, to cover this not to attempt to arbitrarily tell the tenant that the internet was no longer included and keep the rent at the same level.
The tenants understandably felt they had no option but to accept the landlord’s demand or negotiate with her or they feared their internet and phone would be disconnected.
I do not find that the landlord has intentionally interfered with the supply of internet to the tenants and therefore she has not committed an unlawful act.
Although I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act, I do consider that the consequence of her actions meant that the tenants had less satisfactory services than they had previously and at greater cost to them.
Neither party intended that the tenants would lose their landline, but this is what happened as a consequence of the changes imposed by the landlord.
This breach has directly caused unnecessary distress and anxiety to a tenant with serious health issues for whom reliable communication is vital, and I consider that general damages in the sum of $500.00 are appropriate to compensate the tenants for this breach and the accompanying stress.
The amount ordered is proved.
All other claims are either outside of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal or unconnected to specific or proven breaches of the Act and are dismissed.
As Karen Ann Goffe and Rama Goffe have partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4835085 — Property damage at 26 Barwells Road, Rangiora, RD 2 Rangiora, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4835085 — Property damage at 26 Barwells Road, Rangiora, RD 2 Rangiora, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions