What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4877462?

The tribunal order states: The claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4877462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877462?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Harassment, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10883562-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4877462?

The tribunal order states: The claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4877462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877462?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Harassment, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10883562-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Point Street, Raglan, Raglan 3225 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4877462 — Rent arrears

Order

The claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (3355726-002) to Andrew Thomas Holster immediately.

Reasons

Both parties appeared.
The tenant’s application was filed on 04 May 2024. On 06 June 2024, there was telephone Case Management Conference to clarify the claims and make any evidence directions necessary. The Tribunal directed that if either party had any additional material to provide, they must send it to the other party and the Tribunal before the hearing. Neither party provided any additional material.
The tenant’s claims are: i. That over the course of the tenancy (which ended on 08 May 2024) the landlord issued a number of termination notices, which were subsequently withdrawn. The tenant claims that this resulted in an inference with their expectation of reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the premises (Section 38(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986) (The “Act”). The tenant is seeking compensation of $1,200.00. ii. That the landlord failed to provide and maintain the driveway, refrigerator, and the deck in a reasonable state of repair (Section 45(1)(b) of the Act). The tenant is seeking compensation of $350.00, $550.00, and $550.00. iii. That the landlord refused to allow the tenant to arrange their own electricity provider. The tenant seeks compensation of $400.00. iv. That the landlord had delayed the installation of a fibre connection. The tenant seeks compensation of $300.00. v. That the landlord has failed to comply with Regulations concerning ventilation (note the property had until 01 July 2025 to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The property must meet minimum standards for ventilation as set out at Regulation 11 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947) (Section 45(1)(c) of the Act). The tenant seeks compensation.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act.
Both parties have filed written submissions which I have considered. Bond
The tenant also seeks refund of the bond of $1,200.00. There are no claims made against the bond by the landlord. The parties have been unable to complete the necessary paperwork for the release of the bond. The Tribunal orders release of the bond to the tenant immediately. Interference
The tenancy commenced on 14 July 2020 and was for a fixed term to end on 31 January 2021, after which it continued as a periodic tenancy. For the first 18 months, the tenancy was managed by an agent on behalf of the landlord. After that the landlord themselves took over the day-to-day management. Throughout the tenancy, which ended on 08 May 2024, both the agent and later the landlord conducted regular property inspections.
The tenant states that from the time the landlord over the management of the property until around June 2023, they were told by the landlord on at least six occasions that, for various reasons including an intention to move into the property themselves or to conduct remedial work, that they intended giving written notice to terminate the tenancy within the next six months. The tenant states that each time they began to look for alternate accommodation, but that the landlord never gave notice, instead continually extending the timeframe for these “verbal notices”. The tenant claims that this caused inconvenience and led to constant state of uncertainty and anxiety. The tenant states that it also stopped him from raising issues with the property as they felt that the tenancy was going to end in any event, and they were not worth pursuing.
On or about 04 October 2023 the landlord issued a written notice to end the tenancy on 26 January 2024. The notice was issued on the basis that the landlord intended to complete significant remedial work. However, on 13 December 2023, the landlord advised that they were not in a position to carry out the work and revoked the notice. The tenant states that they expressed relief as they had not yet found alternate accommodation.
On 28 January 2024, the landlord issued another written notice, this time to end the tenancy on 28 April 2024. The notice was again issued on the basis that the landlord intended completing significant remedial work. The tenant objected to the notice claiming that it was not in the correct form. The landlord subsequently revoked the notice and issued a third notice on 07 February 2024, with a termination date of 08 May 2024.
The landlord states that up until the second written notice on 28 January 2024, they had enjoyed an amical relationship with the tenant. The landlord states that the tenancy was initially for a fixed term and that at the end of the fixed term there was an intention to either use the property for some other purpose. At the end of the fixed term the landlord was not able to procced with their plans and the tenancy became periodic. The landlord states they are a first-time landlord and acknowledged sharing their personal circumstances with the tenant during inspections, including financial pressures and plans for the property but could not recall issuing the tenant “verbal notices” as described. The landlord stated that what they discussed may have been misinterpreted by the tenant. They were unaware that these discussions had caused the tenant anxiety, and state this was only raised an issue after the second written notice in January 2024. Although The landlord they agreed to revoke the notice due to the tenants concerns about its validity, the did not believe the notice was invalid but chose to reissue it to “keep the peace”. Law
Section 2(1) of the Act defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy and where appropriate includes a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises.
The terms ’residential premises,’ ‘tenancy,’ and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section 2(1) of the Act as: i. tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. ii. tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
By entering into a residential tenancy agreement, in return for rent, the landlord grants the tenant the right to occupy the premises.
At common law this right of occupation is a right to use and enjoy the property to the exclusion of the landlord and others, often referred to as the right to quiet enjoyment.
Section 38(1) of the Act provides that the tenant shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title of the landlord.
The right to quiet enjoyment is subject to the provisions of the Act, which grants rights and imposes obligations on both the tenant and the landlord.
Section 38(2) of the Act states that a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
In Lucas v Paterson [2005] DCR 76 the Court considered that the common law right was enshrined in section 38(1) but considered the wording of section 38(2) extended beyond the common law right. This reflects the more personal significance of the right of occupation in the residential tenancy context where the property must be primarily used as a place of residence, the tenant’s home.
Under section 51 of the Act, a landlord has the right to terminate a periodic tenancy with notice, or at the end of a fixed term. They may also apply under section 55(1) or 56(1) for termination for rent arrears or other breach.
Section 51(3) of the Act states that every notice to terminate a tenancy must: be in writing, identify the property to which it relates, specify the date the tenant is to vacate, set out the reasons for termination, and be signed by the party giving the notice or their agent.
Section 51(4) states no specific wording is required for a notice to be valid, as long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice and any failure to comply with subsection (3) does not mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
Section 51(6) allows a party who has given valid notice to terminate, one that is valid for form under section 51 and has been properly served, to revoke it, with the consent of the other party before the expiry date and issue another one.
Under section 45 of the Act, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises and has a corresponding right to do so.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2)(b) – (da) of the Act.
It is a general rule that the grantor of a tenancy must not act in a way that prejudices the tenants’ rights which they have created under the agreement and do anything which is inconsistent with the purposes for which the premises are let.
Even when exercising a legitimate right under the agreement or Act, such as entry under section 48(1) or (2), or issuing notice a termination notice, a landlord may be found to have exercised that right in such a manner amounting to an interference reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
Whether there been a breach of section 38 requires an objective assessment of the true nature and significance of the interference in the particular circumstances. See Marino & Ors v Wellington City Council, DC, Wellington, CIV- 2013-085-660, 23 September 2013.
In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated, “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”. The Tribunal also stated “...landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type”.
In NZ International Property Development Ltd t/a Sunshine Housing v Kelly (DC, Christchurch, CIV- 2012-009-00267, 16 May 2012, a boarding house landlord came to the house 4-5 times daily, frequently accessing common areas. On one occasion, the landlord was in the kitchen whilst the tenant was having dinner. Another time, the landlord had a loud argument with another occupant, which the tenant found intimidating. The landlord claimed these visits were for inspecting and cleaning the premises and for introducing prospective boarders. However, the District Court held that the frequency, timing, and nature of visits breached the right to quiet enjoyment.
In Warren & Zatezalo v Jade Rental Properties Ltd (TT 14/01112/PO) (TT 15/00084/PO), the landlord gave notice that a tenancy would end at the conclusion of a fixed term, although the tenant wished to stay. The landlord requested the tenant’s consent for property viewings for prospective tenants. The tenant refused, which was a breach of s48(3A. Despite this refusal the landlord entered the property without consent, unlocking the property and showing a large number of prospective tenants through. The tenant felt vulnerable and alarmed at the intrusion. The landlord refused to leave. The Tribunal fund that the landlord had unlawfully entered the property and had interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
In Denton v Blythe (TT 14/00922/TG) the landlord stored property in the shed and frequently returned during the tenancy to access them. Although the landlord usually provided notice via text messages, they visited about 8 times in one month and fifteen times over a 25-week period. The landlord also brought and stored a boat on the property, proposed to stay a weekend with his daughter in the storage shed (although they never did) and conducted an inspection, bringing two children and another man without introduction. Tribunal considered the cumulative effect of his actions amounted to a breach.
In Maguire & Wakai v Brazier Property Management Ltd (TT 07/03760/CH) the landlrod took 66 photos at inspection, 23 outside and 43 inside, many of which showed the tenant’s possessions, furniture, and furnishings. These photographs were intended for a report to the owner. The tenant was provided copies of the photos on request and was told by the landlord that personal possessions could be removed if the tenant did not want them photographed. However, the Tribunal found that taking of photos of personal areas and possessions was overly intrusive. Additionally, the landlord had sent a number of notes and letters, which demeaned the tenant, and made incessant calls to home and work.
In Kawamura v Scott (TT 09/00975/WN) the tenants had entered into fixed term tenancy. During the tenancy the landlord persistently phoned the tenant, showed up unannounced, provided lists of instructions and 5 letters within a 4-month period, engaged in threatening behaviour that left the tenants felling fearful, and also gave the tenant lengthy and unsolicited advice. The Tribunal concluded that landlord had interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort, and privacy. Analysis
The issue is whether the conduct of the landlord has reached a threshold where, when objectively assessed, it interferes with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the property. After hearing from both parties, I am not satisfied that an interference has occurred.
This is not case where the landlord has deliberately threatened, abused, or demeaned the tenant. Nor is this a case where the landlord was a frequent unannounced visitor to the property. The evidence is that these conversations took place during property inspections with notice, occurring approximately six monthly. This is also not a case where the landlord “shared or used” the property with the tenant’s permission but objectively assessed has overstepped the boundaries in a way that interfered with the tenant’s rights. The landlord entered in the initial fixed term genuinely believing that at its conclusion they would put their plan in motion. Up until early 2024, the relationship between the parties was generally amicable, and the tenant did not raise concerns with the landlord during the tenancy about the stress caused by the landlord’s openness about their plans. I accept that the landlord did not deliberately set out to cause the tenant stress. I am satisfied that if the landlord had been made aware that their openness may have caused the tenant some anxiety, they would likely been less forthcoming about their plans, relying instead on the certainty of written notices.
Dealing with the matter of whether the conduct of the landlrod surrounding the termination notices has amounted to a breach, I am satisfied that the time of issuance, the landlord held a genuine belief that they would be dealing with the property as described, which would not have been possible with the tenant in occupation. Although none of the notices have been produced, and the Tribunal is unable to determine whether their validity or whether they had been served correctly, under section 51(6), I am satisfied that, on each occasion the tenant agreed for the notice to be revoked. In the first instance, this was because they had not secured alternate accommodation, and in the second instance after the tenant had expressed the view that the notice was invalid. The revocation of the first and second notice, and issuance of the third notice, did not, in my opinion prejudice the tenant. Was there a failure to maintain.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the driveway, the deck, and the fridge, which was a chattel provided with the tenancy.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Act states that the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property and the period during which the property is likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the Act is to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a period which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that period is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right whatever the problem might be.
Failing to comply with section 45(1)(b) is a breach for which, if loss has occurred, compensatory damages may be awarded. Driveway
There is a gravel driveway that climbs from the roadway to the property. The tenant states following an extreme weather event around January 2023, when the landlord conducted an inspection, they mentioned the deteriorating state of the driveway, which they claim had been gouged and rutted through erosion, including an exposed concrete section creating a lip that caused punctures. The tenant states that they purchased bags of gravel themselves and applied then to the worse affected areas. However, the tenant states that they did not formally request that the landlord address the driveway until around April 2024, when they sent an email, but that the landlord declined to address the driveway, citing that the tenancy was nearing its end.
The landlord states the first time the driveway was mentioned was after the significant weather events in the region in January 2024, and not 2023. The landlord agreed that the driveway had become rutted but considered it “useable for a 2wd vehicle”. The landlord states that they obtained quotes to level the driveway but could not arrange for the work to be completed before the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has produced a pre tenancy checklist dated 13 July 2020. It shows sections of the driveway. Apart from a rutted area on one of the bends, the driveway appears to be in a reasonable condition. In order to determine whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations, the Tribunal must be able to assess the damage in need of repair. Doing so based solely on the subjective assessment of the parties is insufficient. In the absence of any photographic evidence, the Tribunal cannot make a proper objective assessment of the damage. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to establish the claim, and it is dismissed. Deck
The property consists of three separate rectangular cabins, each accessed each via low wooden deck. The deck is shown in the pre tenancy inspection report and appears to be in a reasonable condition. The tenant states that the deck is constructed from wood unsuitable for outdoor decking, claiming it was too smooth, became mouldy in winter, and was extremely slippery. The tenant referred to the pre tenancy checklist which states “when the deck is slippery be careful”. The tenant states they purchased mould removing product to maintain the deck and repeatedly raised the issue with the landlord. Despite this nothing was done until February 2024, when the landlord re concreted support posts and water blasted the deck. The tenant states that while the deck was more stable it quickly became mouldy and slippery again.
The landlord states that the deck is made from treated timber. They cannot recall it being raised repeatedly and were not aware that it was an issue for the tenant. The landlord states that the property is south facing and exposed to the elements. They state that offered the tenant cleaning products, but the offer was declined. They did not believe it was a health and safety issue as described by the tenant.
There is no evidence of any correspondence between the parties concerning the deck, no texts, or emails. Apart from the oral evidence of each party expressing their subjective views, there is no other evidence, particularly photographs of the deck showing it is a mouldy state. Similar to the driveway the Tribunal cannot make a proper objective assessment as to the nature or extent of any fault. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has breached their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Fridge
The tenant claims that the fridge, a chattel, was not properly maintained. They state that during each inspection they pointed out that the door did not close properly, causing the fridge to freeze and then defrost resulting in spoiled food.
The landlord states they recall the matter being raised for the first time around December 2023. On 20 January 2024, they inspected the fridge but found nothing wrong. The landlord states that the fridge was about five years old, which the tenant disputes. The landlord state they nevertheless decided to replace the fridge in early February 2024, keeping the one, which they state is working fine.
As with the driveway and deck there is no correspondence between the parties concerning the fridge. The tenant claims the fridge was faulty, the landlord states they could not find any fault. The onus is on the tenant to prove the claim. The fact that the landlord replaced the fridge does not on its own necessarily mean that it was faulty. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations concerning the fridge and the claim is dismissed. Electricity
The electricity is in the landlord’s name. Each month the tenant was sent the bill which they paid. The tenant states that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy they asked the agent if they could enter into an agreement with a provider of their choice. The tenant states the primary purpose of this was to establish a credit record. The tenant states that the agent told them that they had raised the matter with the landlord, but that it was deemed “problematic”. The matter was not raised by the tenant again until it was included in the application.
The landlord states the electricity is a “Builders Electrical supply”. That the company providing the infrastructure over which the power is supplied requires the connection to remain in the landowner’s name, which was explained to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant disputes that it was fully explained. The landlord states that the unit price is less than the standard retail rate and that there is no fixed line charge. The landlord agreed that apart from a brief period at the commencement of the tenancy when the matter had been raised by the agent, it had not been raised by the tenant until a few days before the end of the tenancy, when the tenant expressed concern that they had also being paying the landlord’s credit card fees on the invoice.
The tenant has not produced any of the invoices concerned. Apart from being unable to choose their own provider, the Tribunal is unable to assess whether the tenant has suffered any loss. They may have in fact benefited from the arrangement. Under section 39(3) of the Act, the tenant is responsible for usage only, and under section 45(2) which provides that a landlord must not generally interfere with the provision of services, such as electricity, water, and gas. It is difficult to determine what, if any, the breach may be. The claim is dismissed. Broadband
Under section 45B of the Act if the property does not have a fibre connection and it is possible to install one, the landlord must facilitate [ my emphasis] installation. Unless there are valid reasons not to. A landlord who fails to facilitate installation may commit an unlawful act. “Facilitate” is not defined in the Act. The Cambridge Dictionary defines facilitate as: to make something possible or easier. Under section 45B while the landlord must permit, they are not obliged to personally arrange installation for the tenant.
The tenant’s claim was that the landlord had delayed installation, that is they had not “facilitated” installation, only arranging for it to be installed after the tenancy had ended. During the hearing of the claim the tenant advised that the decision not to procced at the material time was mutual and withdrew the claim. Ventilation
The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy they were told by the landlord’s agent that the property was not ventilation compliant. The tenant’s primary complaint concerns a lack of ventilation in the cabin which serving as the bedroom. The room has a ranchslider which has an opening window, and another smaller opening window higher up on one of the end walls. The tenant claims that smaller window provided inadequate ventilation, and they did not feel secure leaving the window in the ranchslider open at night.
The Healthy Homes Standards setting out minimum standards for ventilation for this tenancy come into effect on 01 July 2025. Both parties state that there were more pages to the tenancy agreement produced, which is in a standard form provided by Tenancy Services. Neither party can confirm whether the agreement contained a Healthy Homes compliance statement. Based on the photographs the Tribunal doubts the property meets some of the standards.
Until the HSS take effect for this tenancy, the property must meet minimum standards for ventilation set out at Regulation 11 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. These state that every habitable room must have a window with an openable area of not less than one twentieth the size of the room’s floor area.
The pre tenancy inspection report shows the window and part of the ranchslider. There are no other photographs. There are no details of the size of the room nor the area of opening window. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the cabin fails to meet the Housing Improvement Regulations. Name suppression.
Neither party seek name suppression and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877462 — Rent arrears at 25 Point Street, Raglan, Raglan 3225

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877462 — Rent arrears at 25 Point Street, Raglan, Raglan 3225

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions