What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4843580?

The tribunal order states: Mid West Realty Limited must pay Tiara Maree Falwasser $500.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4843580?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843580?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10498019-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4843580?

The tribunal order states: Mid West Realty Limited must pay Tiara Maree Falwasser $500.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4843580?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843580?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10498019-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

143 Ruamahanga Crescent, Terrace End, Palmerston North Tenancy Tribunal Case 4843580 — Rent arrears

Order

Mid West Realty Limited must pay Tiara Maree Falwasser $500.00 immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant confirmed that her application was for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord: a. Failing to maintain the property. See section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Breaching her quiet enjoyment. See section 38 RTA. c. Unlawful entry of the premises by the landlord’s contractor. See section 48(2)(d) RTA.
The tenant’s application indicated that she was also seeking a repayment of rent. The landlord submitted a rent statement that no overpayment had occurred. The tenant accepted that she was not pursuing any claim in relation to the rent.
In considering the tenant’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for the tenant to provide the evidence necessary to prove her claims. If an applicant fails to do so then the application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. Landlord’s failure to maintain
The tenant claims that the landlord breached its obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises”.
The tenant claimed that at the start of the tenancy in November 2023 she lodged a request for repairs that she believed were necessary through the landlord’s property management system. The tenant gave the landlord a 14 day notice by email on 16 February 2024 of items that had not been repaired. The landlord responded: “I am aware you logged the jobs when you moved in. The jobs were not accepted and were declined for whatever reason so are no longer in the system like I have mentioned to you multiple times now. Please do log the jobs again so I can look in to them. You can not breach me I’m sorry. I’m not in breach of anything. You have not provided me with any information like I have asked, therefore again, there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. Again, you are welcome to go to the tribunal. This is now wasting my time. If you will not log the maintenance, I will no longer be having this discussion with you.”
It is not necessary to record the details of the correspondence that followed between the landlord and the tenant. At the hearing, the tenant confirmed and the landlord provided evidence that the following repairs were completed: a. Broken window latches were replaced in February/March 2024. b. A window latch was replaced in April/May 2024. c. The pantry cupboard was repaired in March/April 2024. d. The bathroom lock was repaired in March/April 2024. e. The kitchen power point was activated during March 2024. f. Holes behind the fridge and the oven were patched in April/May 2024.
The tenant maintained at the hearing that the following repairs were not completed: a. Window latches in two bedrooms remained broken. b. The sliding door in the sunroom remained difficult to operate. c. A barbecue, pallets and other building materials belonging to the landlord were not removed from the premises. d. A cover was not put on the manhole to the deck.
The landlord’s evidence at the hearing was that: a. Its contractors repaired the broken latches they saw and that the landlord was not advised of any further latches requiring attention and was not sent photographs of the issues as it had repeatedly requested. b. Its contractor’s invoice included “plane bottom of door to get moving” and that this referred to the easing of the sunroom sliding door. It did not receive any further complaint from the tenant and believed the issue to have been fixed. c. The items remaining on the property were pallets for the storing of firewood and a barbecue that had always been at the property. d. The landlord did not wish to cover the manhole as it required access under the decking and so to the house.
A tenant has a duty under section 41(d) RTA notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45 (1)(b) RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. What is a reasonable timeframe depends upon the seriousness of the problem and the attempts made by the landlord to investigate and fix the problem.
Having considered the parties’ evidence and submissions, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not undertake repairs in a reasonable timeframe once the tenant had notified it of the issues.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the landlord had a legal duty to provide a cover to its manhole in the decking. The tenant could easily have covered it herself with a piece of furniture or some other object. The tenant did not direct me to a specific code or statute that was breached by the landlord’s refusal to supply a cover.
I will consider the issue of the landlord’s items remaining at the property under the claim for the landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Mice
The tenant complained to the landlord of a “mice infestation”. The landlord noted that mice come inside as the weather gets colder and that the tenant should lay traps. The tenant maintained that the mice came into the property through the hole behind the stove. The tenant claimed that she was catching eight or nine mice every two days. The tenant’s partner gave evidence that at least one mouse was caught every day. When asked by the landlord to provide photographic evidence of the mice “infestation”, the tenant failed to do so.
As noted above, the landlord did block off two obvious holes in the kitchen. However, mice can access any dwelling – even a brand new one. The control of pests is a duty which falls on the tenant first. The issue is often seasonal and to be expected. Only if the number of pests becomes unable to be controlled by the usual methods requiring professional assistance and the issue is due to some fault of the landlord, can it become the landlord’s responsibility.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was required under the RTA to do anything more in relation to the mice issue.
The tenant’s claim for the landlord’s failure to maintain is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her by breaching her 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) 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 claims that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment and harassed her by: a. Making applications to the Tenancy Tribunal for rent arrears and termination on two occasions. b. Asking the tenant to allow prospective new tenants to view the property. c. Making the tenant clean the property beyond what was reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy ended. d. The landlord leaving at the property a barbecue and some other items.
The landlord explained that it made the applications to the Tribunal with the intention of going to mediation so that the tenant’s arrears could be addressed.
I cannot see that the landlord can be said to have harassed the tenant by making a lawful application to the Tribunal. It may have caused stress to the tenant but the landlord is entitled to take reasonable steps to have the tenant meet her obligations under the RTA.
Section 48(3)(a) RTA provides that with the tenant’s consent, the landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants.
The landlord gave evidence that, having consented to the tenant breaking her fixed term tenancy, it asked to be allowed to show the property to prospective tenants once a week for a period of ten minutes.
The tenant agreed to a single date and time which was stipulated by the tenant. She explained that she did not want strangers coming into her home at an already stressful time as she was packing up.
The landlord’s reasonable requests in this situation do not amount to harassment. Indeed, their request in the circumstances was entirely reasonable.
In relation to the final clean of the property, the landlord emailed the areas with which it was not happy to the tenant on 16 May 2024, the day after the tenancy ended, and offered her the chance to complete the work. The tenant had her mother undertake this work but complained at the hearing that it was unnecessary. Once these minor tasks were completed, the landlord immediately authorised release of the bond in full to the tenant.
The tenant provided photographs of the property when she left it. She acknowledged leaving behind a few, small items and that the fireplace had not been cleaned out.
The landlord’s list involved relatively minor matters that were not onerous or beyond what would be required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant’s photographs show that the areas photographed were reasonably clean and tidy, but they do not cover all the areas in the landlord’s notice.
The tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that the landlord’s requirement regarding additional cleaning were either unreasonable or that they amounted to harassment.
Other than a barbecue and two pallets which were left for the tenant’s use, no evidence was provided of the other items left behind by the landlord. Nor did the tenant give evidence as to how these items’ presence at the property caused her any detriment.
It is not possible to accept that the tenant’s rights were breached in any more than a purely technical way by the landlord leaving these items at the property. The Tribunal is not persuaded that any such breach was more than trifling.
The tenant’s claim for breach of her quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Unlawful entry
The tenant claims the landlord’s contractor 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. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant explained and the landlord accepted that the landlord’s contractor entered the property after 8 am one morning and found the tenant and her family asleep in the lounge.
The contractor advised that he had texted the tenant the day before to warn her of his visit. The tenant advised that her phone was not charged and that she did not receive the text.
The landlord immediately apologised to the tenant and spoke to its contractor.
Section 48(2)(d) RTA provides that a landlord may enter the premises “for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry”.
Section 136 RTA sets out the requirements for service of notice required under the RTA as follows: 136 Service of documents (1) Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: (a) it may be given to or served on the landlord or the tenant personally: (b) it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord or the tenant at the address or the Post Office box given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service in accordance with this Act: (ba) if the landlord is a company, it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord at the address of the landlord’s registered office: (c) it may be delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position: (ca) if the landlord is a company, it may be delivered to the landlord’s registered office, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position: (d) it may be transmitted to the email address or facsimile number given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service.
The tenancy agreement contains a clause 16 that provides that: “a. A party may give notice to any other party to the appropriate communication point specified in Sections 1 and 2”. This section includes the tenant’s telephone number. c. Any notice to be given to or from the Tenant may be sent by: Short message service or text message; or email.”
Section 11 RTA provides that any provision in a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA or intends to modify its provisions shall be of no effect, unless it is permitted by the RTA, or the Tribunal is satisfied that it should be permitted having considered the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties and all other relevant circumstances.
The address for service of notices is the tenancy address or the email address provided in the tenancy agreement. The provision in the tenancy agreement that a notice can be served by text message is contrary to section 136 RTA.
Having considered the matters in section 11 RTA, I am not satisfied that the Tribunal should accept the variation in the tenancy agreement to the notice provisions in section 136 RTA. That would be to over-ride the intention of Parliament which included these strict notice provisions. The reason for the strict requirements for service is apparent in the unfortunate position the tenant and her family found themselves when the landlord’s contractor arrived in their home.
By not giving the tenant notice at an address for service and by the landlord’s contractor then entering the premises, the landlord has by its agent unlawfully entered the premises and committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has committed the unlawful act intentionally. The landlord believed that valid notice had been given so that its contractor could enter the property and carry out the repairs requested by the tenant. The landlord’s belief was erroneous but it was not unreasonable. It would not be just to award exemplary damages for this innocent mistake. However, it is appropriate to award compensation for the intrusion and a sum of $500.00 is awarded to the tenant. Suppression
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has succeeded in only one of several claims. She has not therefore been substantially successful in these proceedings and it is not appropriate to grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4843580 — Rent arrears at 143 Ruamahanga Crescent, Terrace End, Palmerston North

Tenancy Tribunal case 4843580 — Rent arrears at 143 Ruamahanga Crescent, Terrace End, Palmerston North

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions