What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4862222?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6450920-004) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4862222?

Compensation: Power: $246.24 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power: $177.53 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $321.74 awarded to landlord; Door: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862222?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10454733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4862222?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6450920-004) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4862222?

Compensation: Power: $246.24 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power: $177.53 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $321.74 awarded to landlord; Door: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862222?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10454733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Lewis Road, Springvale, RD 3, Alexandra 9393 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862222 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862222 — net $127.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$321.74		Rent arrears
Repairs: Door	$230.00		art of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay $230.00.
Compensation: Power		$246.24	Power
Compensation: Power		$177.53	Power
Total award	$551.74	$423.77
Net award		$127.97
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$127.97

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862222 — net $127.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$321.74		Rent arrears
Repairs: Door	$230.00		art of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay $230.00.
Compensation: Power		$246.24	Power
Compensation: Power		$177.53	Power
Total award	$551.74	$423.77
Net award		$127.97
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$127.97

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6450920-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Abbie Elizabeth Sutherland, Blair Wilson Sutherland And Cm Trustees As Trustees For Bw & Ae Sutherland Trust: $127.97 Nicola Rose Cornish: $1,872.03
The tenant is to return the TV remote and washing machine hose to the landlord immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this hearing on 13 June 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not and similarly, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. 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: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner.
The premises are on farmland near Alexandra. They consist of a house sitting on curtilage of approximately 1,000sqm (“the premises”) and a further 4 paddocks of approximately 28 acres (“the farmland”).
The tenancy commenced on 19 June 2022 and ended on 28 March 2024.
The parties entered into a Residential Tenancy Agreement dated 5 June 2022 (“the tenancy agreement).
Clauses 25 to 37 of the tenancy agreement contain what are called “additional clauses”. The additional clauses require the tenant to carry out irrigation and care for stock. The tenant is also required to arrange for inspections by a competent person if the tenant is going to be away from the premises for 4 consecutive days or longer.
Section 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 gives the Tribunal the power to consider issues relating to every tenancy for residential purposes.
The term “residential premises” is defined in part at s.2 RTA as being premises used or intended to be used for occupation by any person as a place of residence. The requirements in the additional clauses clearly relate to the requirements that one might expect to see in a commercial agricultural lease. They are not part of a residential lease and in so far as the tenancy agreement may relate to a requirement that the tenant to carry out farming work on the farmland, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider those matters. The parties are free to have them considered by the Disputes Tribunal. That is a matter for them. Tenant claims Outgoings
The tenant says that she has paid for power that she has not used.
Section 39(3) RTA provides that a tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and this shall include power.
Clause 26 of the Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenant will “pay the power costs of running the security cameras around the workshop”.
The tenant does not have access to the workshop. The landlord has exclusive access to and use of the workshop.
The tenant says that she had further agreed with the landlord that the tenant would pay for the power to the shared bore pump in the neighbour’s driveway. The tenant was to be reimbursed in the sum of $100.00 per annum by the landlord. It being agreed that this payment would be more than the actual usage by the neighbour. The tenant says that the $100.00 has not been paid to her.
The landlord said that in initial discussions with the tenant, it was agreed that in return for the tenant paying for the power to the workshop, the tenant would receive a discounted rent.
The tenant has claimed compensation of $5.62 per day over the term of the tenancy. The tenant accepted that she wasn’t absolutely certain of the figure and that it was an estimate based on the power accounts both during and after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord has obtained advice from the installer of the security cameras that the power cost for the workshop would be .38 cents per day.
The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. I prefer the evidence provided by the landlord that the power cost would be .38 cents per day. There being no evidence, other than the verbal evidence of the landlord as to the discounted sum and there being no reference to that in the tenancy agreement, I do not accept that the power cost was absorbed by the rental discount.
The landlord is to pay the tenant .38 cents per day, for the term of the tenancy. The term is 648 days ($246.24).
The landlord agreed that the $100.00 per annum payment referred to above has not been paid. The landlord is to pay the tenant $100.00 for the period between 19 June 2022 and 19 June 2023 and $77.53 for the part year to the end of the tenancy, a total of $177.53. Hay bales
I consider that this issue forms part of the agricultural lease arrangements between the parties. It does not form part of the residential tenancy terms between the parties, and I declare that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider it. Unlawful entry
The tenant says that the landlord has entered the premises unlawfully.
Section 48 RTA sets out the grounds on which a landlord may enter premises during a tenancy. The landlord may not enter premises without the consent of the tenant or in any of the circumstances referred to in s.48 RTA. None of the circumstances in s.48 RTA allowing the landlord entry apply in this matter.
The tenant says that she received a txt message from the landlord on 27 March 2024. The message said that the landlord has called to see the tenant. The tenant was not home and that the keys were on the bench. The tenant says that it would have been impossible for the landlord to see the keys on the bench inside without entering the premises.
The landlord says that she called to see the tenant. The door was open. The landlord called out but received no response. The landlord said she took 2 paces inside the house and could see the house keys sitting on the bench. She sent the txt to the tenant as she was concerned that the door was open with the keys in sight. She didn’t want to lock the house in case this resulted in the tenant being locked out.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act in entering the premises without consent.
Where a landlord commits an unlawful act, the Tribunal may consider imposing exemplary damages. 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.
Whilst I accept that there has been a breach by the landlord, I consider that having regard to the matters in s.109(3) RTA and particularly the limited effect that the breach has had on the tenant, that an award of exemplary damages is not warranted. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant is entitled to the unimpeded quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The tenant says that the landlord was at the premises frequently after the tenant gave notice of her wish to terminate the tenancy. The tenant says that the landlord was there daily. The tenant accepts that the work being done by the landlord at the premises was legitimate and included spraying and other maintenance work. The tenant says that when combined with the numerous telephone calls and emails that this amounted to harassment.
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.
The landlord said that the calls and emails were simply an attempt to ensure that all outstanding tenancy related issues were dealt with before the end of the tenancy. The work being carried out had to be completed by the landlord during the brief period when her husband as back in New Zealand.
I do not accept that the landlord’s actions amounted to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and the evidence is not such that it could be said to amount to harassment. The tenant application is dismissed. Landlord out of country.
The landlord accepts that the trustees of the landlord trust were out of the country from 8 June 2022 until 10 February 2024.
Section 16A RTA provides that a landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand and must notify the tenant of the agents contact details.
Clearly the trustees were outside New Zealand for more than 21 days. Did the landlord appoint an agent?
Section 2 RTA defines “agent” as in relation to any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means the agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant. It does not require the appointment of a property manager.
At the commencement of the tenancy the landlord provided the tenant with contact details for their parents, who lived close by, as well as a range of neighbours and trades people who could be contacted in the event of any issues arising.
The tenant said that she did not suffer any losses or difficulties as a result of the landlords being overseas. In the circumstances, I consider that the parents were the agents of the landlord and if I am wrong in that, no exemplary damages should be awarded as the tenant has suffered no loss or difficulty as a result. The application is dismissed. Landlord Claims Rent arrears
The landlord claims $371.43 for rent arrears being rent for 19 and 20 June 2022 and 27 and 28 March 2024.
By text message dated 27 March 2024 the tenant confirmed that “rent was paid up to Tuesday 26 March 2024, so there’s still a few days owning...”
The landlord provided a rent summary detailing the rent claim. I accept the claim and the tenant is to pay $371.24 to the landlord.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord is insured and the policy of insurance has an excess of $2,150.00 per claim.
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.
A door was damaged during the tenancy: The tenant accepts responsibility for the damage but goes onto say that the door was repaired by her. Both parties have provided photos. The landlord has provided a quote for the repair of the door in its current condition of $460.00. That is for the installation of a new door. The previous door was 10 years old.
Having reviewed the photos and the evidence, I accept that despite the tenant’s efforts the door remains damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 door at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay $230.00. Replace trees
The landlord says that trees on the property were damaged during the tenancy as the tenant failed to properly irrigate them. I consider that any obligation of the tenant to irrigate the trees does not fall within the requirement of a residential tenancy. If the landlord wishes to pursue the matter further, they may do so in another jurisdiction. The claim is dismissed. Repair irrigation pump
The landlord says that the irrigation pump was damaged as a result of the dam being flooded by the tenant. I consider that any obligation of the tenant in this regard does not fall within the requirements of a residential tenancy. If the landlord wishes to pursue the matter further, they may do so in another jurisdiction. The claim is dismissed. TV remote and washing machine inlet pipe.
The landlord seeks compensation as these items were not present when the tenancy ended. The tenant accepts that she had inadvertently removed these items and still has them. The tenant is to arrange for the return of these items in the same condition that they were in at the end of the tenancy to the landlord. The return is to take place immediately and the tenant is to meet any associated costs.
All other landlord claims were withdrawn.
The landlord applied for reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and no order is made.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862222 — Rent arrears at 22 Lewis Road, Springvale, RD 3, Alexandra 9393

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862222 — Rent arrears at 22 Lewis Road, Springvale, RD 3, Alexandra 9393

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions