What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871821?

The tribunal order states: Teodora Motateanu must pay Elm Limited $2,496.68 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4871821?

Advertising And Other Costs: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Remove Grass Clippings, Dog Waste; L…: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,417.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $51.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871821?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10694320-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871821?

The tribunal order states: Teodora Motateanu must pay Elm Limited $2,496.68 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4871821?

Advertising And Other Costs: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Remove Grass Clippings, Dog Waste; L…: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,417.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $51.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871821?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10694320-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

144 Michael Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4871821 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871821 — net $2,496.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 June 2024	$3,417.14	Rent arrears to 21 June 2024
Advertising and other costs	$517.50	Advertising and other costs
Carpet cleaning	$250.00	Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal and dump fees	$51.60	Rubbish removal and dump fees
Remove grass clippings, dog waste; lawn mowing - landlord time	$80.00	Remove grass clippings, dog waste; lawn mowing - landlord time
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,496.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,496.68

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871821 — net $2,496.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 June 2024	$3,417.14	Rent arrears to 21 June 2024
Advertising and other costs	$517.50	Advertising and other costs
Carpet cleaning	$250.00	Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal and dump fees	$51.60	Rubbish removal and dump fees
Remove grass clippings, dog waste; lawn mowing - landlord time	$80.00	Remove grass clippings, dog waste; lawn mowing - landlord time
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,496.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,496.68

Order

Teodora Motateanu must pay Elm Limited $2,496.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (6248120-004) to Elm Limited immediately.
The tenant’s applications for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy, compensation, and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr and Mrs Shannon appeared for the landlord company.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of her fixed term tenancy, compensation, and exemplary damages for breaches of her quiet enjoyment by the landlord
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on 1 February 2023. It was for a 1-year fixed term. The parties then agreed to extend the tenancy for another year. No new tenancy agreement was entered. None was required given the agreement to vary the tenancy agreement by extending the term of the tenancy.
The tenant had a dog (Jack) who was allowed to be at the premises by agreement. Clause 7 of the tenancy agreement stated that pets were strictly by written agreement and the agreement was limited to Jack.
The parties also completed a pet agreement which set out terms for the end of the tenancy. The agreement related solely to Jack.
Jack then became unwell. He died on 1 January 2024 of a disease condition (T- cell lymphoma).
On 6 January 2024, the tenant advised the landlord of Jack’s death. She said she was considering getting another dog. The landlord was open to the idea but said another pet agreement would be needed.
On 15 January 2024, the landlord asked whether the tenant wanted to renew the tenancy for another year after the March expiry date. The landlord asked for an update on the new dog.
The tenant replied that day. She said she was happy to renew the tenancy for another 12 months. She said the new dog (Mike) a greyhound would reside with her during the term of the renewed tenancy, and she was happy to sign a new pet agreement, which she did.
On 1 April 2024, the tenant was offered a new puppy. On 8 April 2024 she asked for approval for a second dog. The landlord declined consent.
The landlord told the tenant We are actually wanting to reduce the number of dogs in our houses and not increase them. Relevant to this tenancy, the landlord owns 4 houses that share a driveway with a 5 th house owned by someone else.
The tenant interpreted the landlord’s response as meaning that the landlord intended for her to have no dogs. She formed the strange belief that the landlord had, by using spray at the premises in 2023, and then in 2024, caused her first dog Jack to die, and now Mike was in danger of illness and possible death as well.
Fuelled by this belief, the tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord requiring chemical contamination to be removed, for the property to be made safe, and for the landlord to cease looking in at her and listening to her conversations.
The tenant said she did not bring a second dog to the premises (the landlord believes she did, based on observations by a neighbour).
The tenant decided she could not stay at the premises because she was sick and had quit her job because she was unable to work. She said she had no privacy and ‘trust was broken’.
On 10 April 2024, the tenant emailed another landlord to enquire about renting a property. She noted that she had 2 young and polite dogs.
On 12 April 2024 the landlord emailed her and advised that if she vacated the tenancy, she would still remain bound by the fixed term tenancy until a suitable tenant was found to replace her.
The tenant made her application to the Tribunal on 13 April 2024. She wanted to be released from the tenancy.
The tenant arranged for her furniture to be collected from the premises on or about 23 April 2024.
Because the landlord followed her and the furniture removal truck and, she says, tail-gated them, she complained to the police. On their advice she did not return to the property.
The tenant never returned to the premises. She has paid rent to 30 April 2024 and seeks an order that the term of her tenancy be reduced to that date.
The landlord engaged a property manager to locate a new tenant. A new tenancy started on 22 June 2024. Relevant legal provisions Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy. She alleges that the landlord used sprays at her premises that resulted in the death of Jack incurring vet expenses and caused her and her daughter illness.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
Section 38 RTA provides in part:
Quiet enjoyment (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
Section 66(1) RTA provides:
Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced. Discussion Compensation / exemplary damages
The tenant alleges that the landlord sprayed the herbicide Roundup at her premises in 2023 (based on her recollection of Mr Shannon saying he did) and repeatedly in March 2024 by her observation (video and photos evidence provided).
The landlord denies that he was ever at the tenant’s property during 2023 and denies he ever told the tenant he used spray in 2023.
The tenant said the landlord was at the property constantly during March 2024. On 15 March she said the landlord sprayed her and her new dog with a high- pressure pump from behind a fence. She became so concerned she installed surveillance cameras. She said for the first time she began to experience gastro-intestinal issues.
The tenant said the landlord blocked her access to the drive and kept looking at her from the adjacent property and through gaps in the fence.
The landlord said he was not at the premises on 15 March, he was in Rangiora that day. He said he was working renovating the adjacent house he owns between 19 and 22 March only when he used a water blaster and was away for the Easter break in Golden Bay between late March and early April.
The tenant relies on photos and video evidence which she says proves that the landlord sprayed her premises.
The landlord explained that he had for some time sprayed the driveway used by all the residents of the 5 houses located off it, 4 of which he owns. He said he sprayed on 1 day only, on 20 March 2024. He said he sprayed weeds at the front of the tenant’s garage but did not spray around the property. He said that if he had been spraying at will, why would the tenant have asked for permission to keep another dog after that?
The tenant’s photos support the landlord’s evidence that he sprayed the driveway and around the garage on 20 March 2024.
The tenant’s belief that the landlord somehow sprayed most of her property, repeatedly, is not established by the evidence. Nor does the evidence support a finding that the spray used by the landlord caused the death of Jack, her illness or her daughter’s illness.
Neither does the evidence support the tenant’s view that the landlord was disturbing her by constantly looking at her and listening to her on the phone, or deliberately blocking the driveway.
The tenant’s suggestion that the landlord intentionally poisoned her dog is fanciful. She read too much into the landlord’s communication that they wanted to reduce the number of dogs at their properties generally. They had no issue with Mike. They just did not agree to the tenant having more dogs than they had agreed to.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the tenant was determined to have her way by getting a second dog and she wanted a way out of this tenancy when the landlord would not consent to that. Before March and April, the evidence confirms that the tenant was happy at the premises and had no issues of note.
Having decided that she was going to move, I find that the tenant made these allegations against the landlord both about constant spraying and increasing interferences with her quiet enjoyment. She needed to find a way to end this tenancy, and this was it.
Given the proximity of the houses, of course the landlord would have seen from the rooms of the adjacent house where he was working into the tenant’s premises. But I found the tenant’s description of this, to justify a breach of quiet enjoyment, to be exaggerated.
That the landlord used Roundup around the driveway, and near the garage is not disputed. But the tenant’s conclusion of the harm that caused is not supported by objective evidence. It is possible that she, her dog, and her daughter suffered some ill effects. But that has not been established on a probability basis. I dismiss the application for compensation for breaches of quiet enjoyment. Reduction of the term of the tenancy
An application to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is an application of high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts. First, the tenant must prove that there has been an unforeseen change in her circumstances. Then, that she would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced, greater than the landlord’s hardship if it were.
The tenant’s application does not clear the first hurdle. There was no unforeseen change in her circumstances. I do not accept the narrative the tenant has provided. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they were seldom at the premises, not at all in 2023, and for a 4-day period in 2024 when they were renovating their adjacent house.
Without an unforeseen change in circumstances, the tenant’s application cannot succeed and is dismissed. The event on moving day
The tenant described how the landlord followed the removal truck, and her, on the day she arranged for her furniture to be moved.
The landlord accepted he did that. He wanted to find out where she was going so he would have her address for enforcement purposes.
The police became involved. The landlord said the police told him that what he did was unwise. I agree with that advice.
The tenant’s action notifying the police was the correct one. This cannot be a breach of quiet enjoyment because it did not relate to the use of the premises as section 38 RTA requires. I dismiss this part of the application. The landlord’s application Rent arrears
The tenant accepted that the landlord’s rent records was correct, and I find that it is. Given my fining that there are no grounds to reduce the term of the tenancy, the tenant is liable for rent up to the day before the new tenancy started. I award the landlord net arrears of $3,417.14. Other costs
I find proved the landlord’s claim for the costs of finding a new tenant – the costs charged by the property manager as their agent. Without that, the tenant’s liability for rent could have lasted longer.
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.
I find proved the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. Although the tenancy agreement provided that the carpets had to be professionally cleaned, that clause is not binding. A tenancy agreement cannot impose any greater obligation on a tenant than the RTA contains.
However, when pets are kept inside premises, the Tribunal usually considers that carpet cleaning is a reasonable requirement to ensure the carpets are reasonably clean, even when, as here, the tenant used a carpet protector.
I dismiss the claim for a flea bomb. There is no evidence that the premises had fleas. While a prudent action by the landlord, the tenant is not liable for that when there is no evidence of flea infestation.
I find proved the claim for rubbish removal and dump fees. The tenant accepted that she did not remove all rubbish when she vacated the tenancy.
I find proved a claim for landlord labour for garden work and lawn including removing dog waste. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The bond will be paid to the landlord.
After the deduction of the bond, the tenant must pay the landlord $2,496.68 for the balance of rent arrears, costs, and the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought an order for name suppression. I make no order as her application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871821 — Rent arrears at 144 Michael Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871821 — Rent arrears at 144 Michael Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions