What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4858720?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Stacey McKenzie at 111 Crawford Road, Mataura, RD 2, Mataura

How much money was awarded in case 4858720?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4858720?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4858720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10723512-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4858720?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Stacey McKenzie at 111 Crawford Road, Mataura, RD 2, Mataura

How much money was awarded in case 4858720?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4858720?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4858720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10723512-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

111 Crawford Road, Mataura, RD 2, Mataura 9772, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4858720 — Smoke alarms

Order

The tenancy of Stacey McKenzie at 111 Crawford Road, Mataura, RD 2, Mataura 9772, Kanadale is terminated, and possession is granted to W Thompson And Company Limited - Harcourts Gore Sharon Wenlock, at 5 pm on 19 August 2024 by consent.
The landlord is to pay Stacey McKenzie the sum of $50.00 from the bond for failing to instal the smoke alarms.
The bond centre is to make the payment of the bond of $1,520.00 as follows: a) Payment to the landlord of $112.86 (rent less Exemplary damages $50.00) b) Payment to the tenant of the balance of $1,407.14.
The remainder of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenancy commenced on the 26 January 2024.
This claim originally started with the tenant claiming that the notice to terminate was retaliatory however at the hearing the tenant advised that she had vacated the premises and sought an exit inspection that day.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I asked that the parties confirm with the Tribunal the outcome of the final inspection so that I could deal with the return of the bond.
I can confirm that the landlord has advised by email, that was copied to the tenant, that the vacate inspection went well and that the tenant left the property very clean and that it was agreed that the bond would be returned, less $162.86 outstanding rent. I am therefore able to terminate the tenancy in this order and also deal with the issue of the bond, taking into consideration the awards made and the rent arrears.
The tenant seeks compensation for a number of alleged breaches of the landlords’ responsibilities, I shall deal with each one separately. Has the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

Stacey McKenzie claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant was given the keys earlier than the date the tenancy was to commence. She was given the opportunity for free rent to clean the property and this was not an issue at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant also claims that there was a rat/mice infestation. The photo evidence shows a dead mouse outside in a bucket of water and one in the laundry. There is nothing to suggest that this was a significant issue that would warrant an award of exemplary damages and the claim is dismissed.
The tenant also claims a further breach of S45, in that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. She claims it took too long for the repair in the laundry to be remedied. Having considered what is ‘reasonable’ I am not satisfied on the evidence that this claim has been proven.
The tenant also claims that the landlord failed to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
The tenancy commenced on 26 th January 2024 and a text message was produced in evidence dated the 16th April to the tenant advising that the handy man wanted to go to the property to look at the leak in the kitchen and check smoke alarms. The smoke alarms should have been installed at the commencement of the tenancy.
Breaching any of these obligations under section 45is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to have the smoke alarms installed in the first three months of the tenancy and I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Stacey McKenzie claims the landlord has harassed her , breaching her peace and comfort.
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 she was punished for being a dog owner, being watched constantly by owners who live nearby, the owner allowing tradesmen to enter her property to carry out the removal of farm internet.
There is insufficient evidence to support a claim for exemplary damages for this alleged breach and I dismiss this part of the claim.

Has the landlord interfered with the supply of power?

Stacey McKenzie claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by failing to supply power to an outside shed.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of 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. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants evidence is that the landlord was denying the supply of electricity and believed it was possible to be connected to an outside shed. Having heard from the landowner and considering all the evidence in relation to this issue, I do not accept that there has been a breach under this section, rather a misunderstanding that needed to be cleared up with the tenant. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Has the landlord discriminated against the tenant?

Stacey McKenzie claims that the landlord discriminated against her.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant states that she was discriminated against for having dogs. She states that this is the reason her tenancy was terminated. On the evidence I do not accept this. There was a confusion around why the dogs were permitted in the tenancy however I do not see this as being a factor that would result in exemplary damages to be awarded as I do not find there to have been discrimination as defined in the act.
Given the evidence submitted I do not accept that the claim as been proven, and I dismiss the claim accordingly.

Did the landlord breach their obligations upon receipt of the bond?

Stacey McKenzie claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Tenancy services confirmed in a letter dated 15 March 2024. It confirms payment was received on 7 March 2024.The tenancy started on 26 January 2024. Lodgement of the bond was approximately six days late. Given the very small delay and the fact that the tenancy had not suffered due to this delay I dismiss the claim and do not award compensation.
Having considered all of the evidence and the statements and claims made by the tenant including that the tenant believed that the tenancy agreement was not legally binding and not signed correctly with false information I dismiss all other claims by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4858720 — Smoke alarms at 111 Crawford Road, Mataura, RD 2, Mataura 9772,

Tenancy Tribunal case 4858720 — Smoke alarms at 111 Crawford Road, Mataura, RD 2, Mataura 9772,

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Has the landlord interfered with the supply of power?

Has the landlord discriminated against the tenant?

Did the landlord breach their obligations upon receipt of the bond?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Has the landlord harassed the tenant?

Has the landlord interfered with the supply of power?

Has the landlord discriminated against the tenant?

Did the landlord breach their obligations upon receipt of the bond?

Property management