What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4878588?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4878588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878588?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10870628-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4878588?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4878588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878588?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10870628-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

74 Karewa Parade, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4878588 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

74 Karewa Parade, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4878588 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

This is amended order that grants both parties name suppression and confirms the amount to be paid is $814.52. Nothing else has been changed in the body of the order.
Both parties attended the hearing. This is a current tenancy that began on 1 January 2022.
The landlords claim for rent arrears was heard and determined in an order dated 19 September 2024.The tenants’ cross application was case conferenced and adjourned in the same order, these are the claims addressed in this order.
The tenant claimed that. a) The Bond had not been lodged on time and the full amount was not lodged. b) The rent and rent increase were in excess of the market rent. c) The Healthy Homes information provided with the tenancy agreement was false. d) There was a breach of quiet enjoyment, by constant rent arrears notices, reference to the Police and a Facebook message that was not shown to the tenant. e) A water bill credit was held by the landlord and not returned to the tenant. f) The 90-day notice was invalid. g) The Landlord failed to keep and provide proper business records. Bond
[The tenant/s] 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.
The landlord agreed that she did not send the part bond payment to the bond centre as she believed that she could only deposit the full amount.
The bond of $3800.00 was to be transferred from a previous property managed by the landlord, but after end of tenancy costs were taken from it, a total of $2628.59 was left to be transferred.
This amount was held by the landlord and further reduced when the tenant asked for money to be advanced for food, petrol, and a gas connection. The tenant instructed the landlord to forwarded it to her from the part bond held and the landlord did. The tenant believed that WINZ would then top up the bond to the full amount. This never happened.
The landlord deposited the part bond money at the bond centre on 31 October 2023. The balance left after the money forwarded to the tenant was $1714.52. The bond centre would only accept $1700.00 so the balance of $14.52 was held as a bond credit in the tenant ledger. A copy of the tenant ledger showing this was produced.
The tenancy began on 1 December 2022 and the landlord had the tenants bond money until 31 October 2023. It is acknowledged that some of this was disbursed to help the tenant with money to cover essential items however the law is clear that when the bond is paid in whole or part to the landlord, it must be deposited within 23 working days of receipt. See section 19 RTA.
I find they have 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.
The landlord is a professional property manager and should know the requirements of the RTA. The bond is money to be held independently as a surety for end of tenancy claims. Not knowing the law is not acceptable. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $300.00 for failure to lodge the bond. Market rent
[The tenant/s] seeks an order for a reduction in rent. A tenant can make an application to the Tribunal for an order reducing the amount of rent paid and must establish that the rent exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. See 25 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Market rent is the amount a landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a tenant might reasonably expect to pay for a tenancy. The rent charged for this property is $950.00 per week and the landlord seeks to increase the rent to $980.00 per week. The tenant seeks a review of the current rent paid and the rent increase.
Three questions need to be considered. What is the market rent for the relevant premises? is the rent and rent increase substantially above the market rate? and if so, what should the rent be?

What is the market rent?

The premises are a standalone Lockwood home with 4 bedrooms, or 3 bedrooms and an office. It has a single attached garage and two bathrooms, one upstairs and one downstairs. It is located on a corner site with an estimated 700 metre square section.
In support of the rent increase the landlord provided information, from the Trade Me rental listings, of comparative properties in the Papamoa beach area with 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms. The rents ranged from $975.00 to $1550.00 per week.
The landlord said the most comparable was a property of about the same age, on the same street which had an additional living room listed for rent at $1000.00 per week.
The tenant disputed that the other properties were comparable to hers and provided photos of the inside of the current premises which showed a home that was older than the properties charging rent above $1000.00 per week.
The tenant said that she had not viewed the inside of the current premises before signing the lease, relying on photographs sent by the landlord. She signed for a fixed term 4-month period at the start, which has continued as a periodic tenancy.
The tenant provided data from myrent.co.nz of the average rent and trends in Papamoa beach. This recorded a median rent for 3-bedroom property was Papamoa beach is $735.00.
The tenant provided photographs of premises to rent with 4 bedrooms 2 bathrooms near her location ranging from $800.00 to $820.00 per week which were in very good condition and a lot newer than her present property. The 3- bedroom premises ranged from $700.00 to $720.00 per week.
The landlord questioned the section sizes of these rentals and if they would allow a tenant with a dog. This information was not available.
The current premises are not new and not comparable to the upper end of rentals shown by the landlord. The tenant’s information put the upper rental at $820.00 but lacked information about the section size.
I find the house for rent in the same street for $1000.00 per week comparable in age and size, apart from the extra living room. Based on this information I conclude that the market rent for the Papamoa beach area where the tenancy is $920.00.

Is the rent and rent increase substantially above the market rate?

The rent currently being paid of $950.00 which is $30.00 above the market rate which I do not find is substantially above the market rent. .
The increase in rent to $980.00 represents an increase of $60.00 extra per week and I find that this is a substantial rent increase.

What should the rent be?

I find that the rent should be $950.00 per week. This rent rate is effective from the date of the application to the Tribunal, being 3 May 2024. Healthy Homes Report
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1F)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement recorded that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards, HHS, as required by section 45 (bb) RTA.
The landlord said that a healthy homes report was issued on 20 July 2022 that she had not seen, but she believed that the owners would have made all the improvements required by the report and the premises would have complied. The landlord completed the tenancy agreement on this basis confirming that the premises complied with the HHS. She did not check the report results, recommendations, or compliance. The law 13A(1CA) the landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement made and signed by the landlord ,- (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy the landlord will comply with the healthy home standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb)( as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by the regulations under section 138B(5) 13A(1F)(b) The landlord commits an unlawful act if- (b) the landlord’s statement under subsection... 1(CA)... includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading.
The premises had two healthy homes inspections conducted. The report dated 20 July 2022 failed the premises in respect of the roof insulation, ground moisture barrier, roof drainage, ground moisture barrier, draught stopping, ventilation, and the heating requirement in the main living room.
The landlord believed that most of these were attended to however the premises failed a second healthy homes inspection.
The second report dated 20 June 2024 failed the premises for draught and moisture ingress and drainage.
The premises was issued a Healthy Homes Compliance certificate 26 July 2024
The tenant became aware that the premises failed the heating requirement when a repairer said that the heat pump in the living room would not comply. A top up heater was then ordered by the landlord.
The tenancy began on 1 December 2022 and this rental must comply with the HHS from 28 August 2022.
The tenancy agreement claimed that the premises complied with the requirements of the HHS but they did not.
The tenant’s claim was that false information was provided to her when signing a tenancy agreement and she relied on that thinking that she was renting a premises that was Healthy Homes compliant.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The landlord presented the agreement and premises to the tenant assuming it complied with the HHS. Some of the consequences of the landlord’s lack of due diligence was the tenant and her family were living in a premises that was not able to be heated to the correct level, had draughts and moisture issues.
Not checking the details of the Healthy Homes report does not give the landlord an excuse, at best it is bad practice and at worst it could be classed as wilful blindness. This is important legal requirement to improve tenancies for the tenants and families. Providing false information did not give the tenant a true representation of the compliance with the HHS.
I find that it is just to award exemplary damages of $500.00 for this breach. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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 was concerned that, a) a Facebook post the landlord had been tagged in referred to the tenant. b) the landlord had been talking to the neighbours. c) the landlord was threatening her about going to the Police and reporting her.
The tenant was concerned for her privacy and security and wanted to see the contents of a Facebook post that mentioned her. The landlord said she was tagged by someone else, and it was not available anymore.
The landlord said that the owner had called her as she had heard from a neighbour that cars were coming and going from the premises. The landlord said that she had not been talking to the neighbours about the tenant and that she reassured the owners they should not be concerned.
Both parties have been to the Police concerning each other’s claims and behaviours. The tenant felt that by the landlord threatening to go to the Police it was bullying behaviour.
The landlord said the tenant accused her of theft in relation to the water credit (discussed below). She wanted to make sure it was clear that she had not stolen anything. The landlord said she was receiving multiple texts from the tenant and the Police said to block her, but she could not as she was a property a manger. She was told that she did not need to make a complaint as the claims were before the Tenancy Tribunal and so she did not have any paper work confirming that she had been to the Police and not just threatened to.
An incident that concerned the tenant was when the landlords partner Mr Gamble delivered the copied evidence for the hearing to her home. The landlord had a significant amount of evidence for the hearing and due to the deterioration of the relationship and concern for herself organised her partner, Mr Gamble, to deliver it while she sat in the car.
Mr Gamble appeared as a witness and gave evidence that he knocked on the door and the blinds were shut so he placed the box of documents on a covered deck and took a photo of it. The tenant came outside and asked him what the paperwork was and when he said it was from Boutique Rentals, she replied that it should have been there yesterday. Mr Gamble said the applicant needed to provide the documents 10 days before, but the landlord could deliver 3 days before.
Here the parties recollection differs. The tenant said Mr Gamble said ‘she was going to get what she deserves’. Mr Gamble denied this and said that he would never say this to a person.
The landlord said that she did not feel safe delivering the documents by herself and that is why Mr Gamble did it for her.
The parties relationship had clearly broken down with both making claims and going to the Police.
There has been a lot of exchanges between the parties, but I find nothing that amounts to harassment by the landlord. The landlord is allowed to go to the Police and talk about her concerns, as is the tenant, without this being interpreted seen as bullying or harassment.
The landlord explained the incident with the neighbours, and has no access to the Facebook post. There was nothing in the actions of Mr Gamble that was proven to be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and the landlord was complying with a Tribunal direction to provide copies of all the evidence for the hearing to the tenant.
The evidence provided did not support this claim and it is dismissed. Water bill credit
The tenant claimed that a water credit issue by the Tauranga City Council was held by the landlord and not refunded to her.
The landlord sought a water remission of the amount charged for an invoice. The invoice was not paid, and the council checked the water used based on previous consumption and granted an adjustment of the water account. A remission (or credit) of $102.00 was approved and included in the water rates invoice dated 6 May 2024, bringing the amount due down from $265.20 to $163.20.
The tenant believed that this credit was her money that should have been given to her. She claimed that the landlord had held it.
The landlord provided copies of the tenant’s ledgers which record a weekly automatic payment directly from WINZ of $20.00 that is to be used only for water rates. This is held as a credit and then used to pay water rates when they are issued every three months. The cumulative amount held is clearly recorded.
The tenant said that she does not trust the landlords’ records but provided no evidence to support this.
The landlord provided a copy of the water invoice amended after the remission, clearly showing the credit had been applied to the water rates for that period. The landlord never had access to the water credit. Tauranga City Council applied the credit to the balance.
This claim is dismissed.

Was the 90-day notice valid?

The tenant was issued a 90 day notice terminating the tenancy on 17 November 2024 because the owner intends to put the premises on the market within, 90 days after the termination date.
There was some confusion arising from the different advice given to both parties about whether a tenant can stay in the premises while its listed or if the landlord has to wait until its vacant.
The tenant said that she had been told that this was a long-term tenancy, and she believed that the landlord had been trying to throw her out by drug testing the premises and saying that the neighbours were complaining. She was not given the option to stay in the premises until it was sold.
The landlord said that she was acting on instructions from the owners. The owners want to buy another property and needed to sell to be able to do that. The landlord had delayed it once but was instructed to issue the 90-day notice on 19 August 2024 ending the tenancy on 17 November 2024.
The 90-day notice is valid, and the last day of the tenancy is to be 17 November 2024. Failure to keep proper records.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(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 $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant said that the landlord constantly emailed her the incorrect rent arrears messages claiming the full rent amount when she is 3 days late with rent payments and then a few days later issues a 14 day rent arrears notice for the same missed amount. The landlord sends them frequently, so she believes that they overlap and do not make sense.
The tenant provided copies of the notices and said that she does not believe the landlords records but provided no evidence for this. She said a separate by investigation is under way by WINZ.
The landlord explained that there is an automated system that recognises when rent is not paid on time and sends out a reminder to pay rent. This is sent 3 days after the due date if it is not paid. This is not for 3 days rent, just that the tenant is 3 days late paying the full rent.
If rent is not received, then a 14-day notice to remedy is sent for the full amount.
The landlord said that this automated system cannot be turned off as it affects all her tenants.
Although this does sound like a lot of emails, the tenant is required under the RTA to pay rent when due, and on time. The landlord is entitled to issue a 14-day notice for non-payment of rent The landlord has provided ledgers of rent and bond money paid and held, as well as rent arrears records for the Tribunal.
There was no evidence provided that the landlord failed to keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant said that the windowsill in the master bedroom around the window was not fixed properly. Photographs were provided.
This area failed the 2024 Healthy Homes report as there was rot damage to the bottom jam and maintenance required to the bay windows. This was repaired and given a pass in the compliance certificate on 26 July 2024.
The tenant told the landlord her ongoing concerns and the landlord emailed a work order through to ‘Exceed’ their repairers. They returned to the landlord saying that that they found nothing wrong.
The landlord has put through a further work order to relook at the area. The tenant feels that nothing has been done to remedy this.
The breach of HHS has been discussed and as part of the requirement this area was repaired. I find that the landlord has attended to the tenants’ requests and is continuing to. Even if I found that there was a breach by the landlord, I would not find that this was an intentional breach because the landlord has been responding to the tenants’ requests.
This claim is dismissed.
Both parties filled applications, and both were mostly successful so the filling fee will not be reimbursed.
The tenant and landlord sought name suppression in their applications and as they were both somewhat successful with their applications this is granted. See section 95A RTA.

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

This is amended order that grants both parties name suppression and confirms the amount to be paid is $814.52. Nothing else has been changed in the body of the order.
Both parties attended the hearing. This is a current tenancy that began on 1 January 2022.
The landlords claim for rent arrears was heard and determined in an order dated 19 September 2024.The tenants’ cross application was case conferenced and adjourned in the same order, these are the claims addressed in this order.
The tenant claimed that. a) The Bond had not been lodged on time and the full amount was not lodged. b) The rent and rent increase were in excess of the market rent. c) The Healthy Homes information provided with the tenancy agreement was false. d) There was a breach of quiet enjoyment, by constant rent arrears notices, reference to the Police and a Facebook message that was not shown to the tenant. e) A water bill credit was held by the landlord and not returned to the tenant. f) The 90-day notice was invalid. g) The Landlord failed to keep and provide proper business records. Bond
[The tenant/s] 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.
The landlord agreed that she did not send the part bond payment to the bond centre as she believed that she could only deposit the full amount.
The bond of $3800.00 was to be transferred from a previous property managed by the landlord, but after end of tenancy costs were taken from it, a total of $2628.59 was left to be transferred.
This amount was held by the landlord and further reduced when the tenant asked for money to be advanced for food, petrol, and a gas connection. The tenant instructed the landlord to forwarded it to her from the part bond held and the landlord did. The tenant believed that WINZ would then top up the bond to the full amount. This never happened.
The landlord deposited the part bond money at the bond centre on 31 October 2023. The balance left after the money forwarded to the tenant was $1714.52. The bond centre would only accept $1700.00 so the balance of $14.52 was held as a bond credit in the tenant ledger. A copy of the tenant ledger showing this was produced.
The tenancy began on 1 December 2022 and the landlord had the tenants bond money until 31 October 2023. It is acknowledged that some of this was disbursed to help the tenant with money to cover essential items however the law is clear that when the bond is paid in whole or part to the landlord, it must be deposited within 23 working days of receipt. See section 19 RTA.
I find they have 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.
The landlord is a professional property manager and should know the requirements of the RTA. The bond is money to be held independently as a surety for end of tenancy claims. Not knowing the law is not acceptable. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $300.00 for failure to lodge the bond. Market rent
[The tenant/s] seeks an order for a reduction in rent. A tenant can make an application to the Tribunal for an order reducing the amount of rent paid and must establish that the rent exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. See 25 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Market rent is the amount a landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a tenant might reasonably expect to pay for a tenancy. The rent charged for this property is $950.00 per week and the landlord seeks to increase the rent to $980.00 per week. The tenant seeks a review of the current rent paid and the rent increase.
Three questions need to be considered. What is the market rent for the relevant premises? is the rent and rent increase substantially above the market rate? and if so, what should the rent be?

What is the market rent?

The premises are a standalone Lockwood home with 4 bedrooms, or 3 bedrooms and an office. It has a single attached garage and two bathrooms, one upstairs and one downstairs. It is located on a corner site with an estimated 700 metre square section.
In support of the rent increase the landlord provided information, from the Trade Me rental listings, of comparative properties in the Papamoa beach area with 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms. The rents ranged from $975.00 to $1550.00 per week.
The landlord said the most comparable was a property of about the same age, on the same street which had an additional living room listed for rent at $1000.00 per week.
The tenant disputed that the other properties were comparable to hers and provided photos of the inside of the current premises which showed a home that was older than the properties charging rent above $1000.00 per week.
The tenant said that she had not viewed the inside of the current premises before signing the lease, relying on photographs sent by the landlord. She signed for a fixed term 4-month period at the start, which has continued as a periodic tenancy.
The tenant provided data from myrent.co.nz of the average rent and trends in Papamoa beach. This recorded a median rent for 3-bedroom property was Papamoa beach is $735.00.
The tenant provided photographs of premises to rent with 4 bedrooms 2 bathrooms near her location ranging from $800.00 to $820.00 per week which were in very good condition and a lot newer than her present property. The 3- bedroom premises ranged from $700.00 to $720.00 per week.
The landlord questioned the section sizes of these rentals and if they would allow a tenant with a dog. This information was not available.
The current premises are not new and not comparable to the upper end of rentals shown by the landlord. The tenant’s information put the upper rental at $820.00 but lacked information about the section size.
I find the house for rent in the same street for $1000.00 per week comparable in age and size, apart from the extra living room. Based on this information I conclude that the market rent for the Papamoa beach area where the tenancy is $920.00.

Is the rent and rent increase substantially above the market rate?

The rent currently being paid of $950.00 which is $30.00 above the market rate which I do not find is substantially above the market rent. .
The increase in rent to $980.00 represents an increase of $60.00 extra per week and I find that this is a substantial rent increase.

What should the rent be?

I find that the rent should be $950.00 per week. This rent rate is effective from the date of the application to the Tribunal, being 3 May 2024. Healthy Homes Report
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1F)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement recorded that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards, HHS, as required by section 45 (bb) RTA.
The landlord said that a healthy homes report was issued on 20 July 2022 that she had not seen, but she believed that the owners would have made all the improvements required by the report and the premises would have complied. The landlord completed the tenancy agreement on this basis confirming that the premises complied with the HHS. She did not check the report results, recommendations, or compliance. The law 13A(1CA) the landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement made and signed by the landlord ,- (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy the landlord will comply with the healthy home standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb)( as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by the regulations under section 138B(5) 13A(1F)(b) The landlord commits an unlawful act if- (b) the landlord’s statement under subsection... 1(CA)... includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading.
The premises had two healthy homes inspections conducted. The report dated 20 July 2022 failed the premises in respect of the roof insulation, ground moisture barrier, roof drainage, ground moisture barrier, draught stopping, ventilation, and the heating requirement in the main living room.
The landlord believed that most of these were attended to however the premises failed a second healthy homes inspection.
The second report dated 20 June 2024 failed the premises for draught and moisture ingress and drainage.
The premises was issued a Healthy Homes Compliance certificate 26 July 2024
The tenant became aware that the premises failed the heating requirement when a repairer said that the heat pump in the living room would not comply. A top up heater was then ordered by the landlord.
The tenancy began on 1 December 2022 and this rental must comply with the HHS from 28 August 2022.
The tenancy agreement claimed that the premises complied with the requirements of the HHS but they did not.
The tenant’s claim was that false information was provided to her when signing a tenancy agreement and she relied on that thinking that she was renting a premises that was Healthy Homes compliant.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The landlord presented the agreement and premises to the tenant assuming it complied with the HHS. Some of the consequences of the landlord’s lack of due diligence was the tenant and her family were living in a premises that was not able to be heated to the correct level, had draughts and moisture issues.
Not checking the details of the Healthy Homes report does not give the landlord an excuse, at best it is bad practice and at worst it could be classed as wilful blindness. This is important legal requirement to improve tenancies for the tenants and families. Providing false information did not give the tenant a true representation of the compliance with the HHS.
I find that it is just to award exemplary damages of $500.00 for this breach. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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 was concerned that, a) a Facebook post the landlord had been tagged in referred to the tenant. b) the landlord had been talking to the neighbours. c) the landlord was threatening her about going to the Police and reporting her.
The tenant was concerned for her privacy and security and wanted to see the contents of a Facebook post that mentioned her. The landlord said she was tagged by someone else, and it was not available anymore.
The landlord said that the owner had called her as she had heard from a neighbour that cars were coming and going from the premises. The landlord said that she had not been talking to the neighbours about the tenant and that she reassured the owners they should not be concerned.
Both parties have been to the Police concerning each other’s claims and behaviours. The tenant felt that by the landlord threatening to go to the Police it was bullying behaviour.
The landlord said the tenant accused her of theft in relation to the water credit (discussed below). She wanted to make sure it was clear that she had not stolen anything. The landlord said she was receiving multiple texts from the tenant and the Police said to block her, but she could not as she was a property a manger. She was told that she did not need to make a complaint as the claims were before the Tenancy Tribunal and so she did not have any paper work confirming that she had been to the Police and not just threatened to.
An incident that concerned the tenant was when the landlords partner Mr Gamble delivered the copied evidence for the hearing to her home. The landlord had a significant amount of evidence for the hearing and due to the deterioration of the relationship and concern for herself organised her partner, Mr Gamble, to deliver it while she sat in the car.
Mr Gamble appeared as a witness and gave evidence that he knocked on the door and the blinds were shut so he placed the box of documents on a covered deck and took a photo of it. The tenant came outside and asked him what the paperwork was and when he said it was from Boutique Rentals, she replied that it should have been there yesterday. Mr Gamble said the applicant needed to provide the documents 10 days before, but the landlord could deliver 3 days before.
Here the parties recollection differs. The tenant said Mr Gamble said ‘she was going to get what she deserves’. Mr Gamble denied this and said that he would never say this to a person.
The landlord said that she did not feel safe delivering the documents by herself and that is why Mr Gamble did it for her.
The parties relationship had clearly broken down with both making claims and going to the Police.
There has been a lot of exchanges between the parties, but I find nothing that amounts to harassment by the landlord. The landlord is allowed to go to the Police and talk about her concerns, as is the tenant, without this being interpreted seen as bullying or harassment.
The landlord explained the incident with the neighbours, and has no access to the Facebook post. There was nothing in the actions of Mr Gamble that was proven to be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and the landlord was complying with a Tribunal direction to provide copies of all the evidence for the hearing to the tenant.
The evidence provided did not support this claim and it is dismissed. Water bill credit
The tenant claimed that a water credit issue by the Tauranga City Council was held by the landlord and not refunded to her.
The landlord sought a water remission of the amount charged for an invoice. The invoice was not paid, and the council checked the water used based on previous consumption and granted an adjustment of the water account. A remission (or credit) of $102.00 was approved and included in the water rates invoice dated 6 May 2024, bringing the amount due down from $265.20 to $163.20.
The tenant believed that this credit was her money that should have been given to her. She claimed that the landlord had held it.
The landlord provided copies of the tenant’s ledgers which record a weekly automatic payment directly from WINZ of $20.00 that is to be used only for water rates. This is held as a credit and then used to pay water rates when they are issued every three months. The cumulative amount held is clearly recorded.
The tenant said that she does not trust the landlords’ records but provided no evidence to support this.
The landlord provided a copy of the water invoice amended after the remission, clearly showing the credit had been applied to the water rates for that period. The landlord never had access to the water credit. Tauranga City Council applied the credit to the balance.
This claim is dismissed.

Was the 90-day notice valid?

The tenant was issued a 90 day notice terminating the tenancy on 17 November 2024 because the owner intends to put the premises on the market within, 90 days after the termination date.
There was some confusion arising from the different advice given to both parties about whether a tenant can stay in the premises while its listed or if the landlord has to wait until its vacant.
The tenant said that she had been told that this was a long-term tenancy, and she believed that the landlord had been trying to throw her out by drug testing the premises and saying that the neighbours were complaining. She was not given the option to stay in the premises until it was sold.
The landlord said that she was acting on instructions from the owners. The owners want to buy another property and needed to sell to be able to do that. The landlord had delayed it once but was instructed to issue the 90-day notice on 19 August 2024 ending the tenancy on 17 November 2024.
The 90-day notice is valid, and the last day of the tenancy is to be 17 November 2024. Failure to keep proper records.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(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 $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenant said that the landlord constantly emailed her the incorrect rent arrears messages claiming the full rent amount when she is 3 days late with rent payments and then a few days later issues a 14 day rent arrears notice for the same missed amount. The landlord sends them frequently, so she believes that they overlap and do not make sense.
The tenant provided copies of the notices and said that she does not believe the landlords records but provided no evidence for this. She said a separate by investigation is under way by WINZ.
The landlord explained that there is an automated system that recognises when rent is not paid on time and sends out a reminder to pay rent. This is sent 3 days after the due date if it is not paid. This is not for 3 days rent, just that the tenant is 3 days late paying the full rent.
If rent is not received, then a 14-day notice to remedy is sent for the full amount.
The landlord said that this automated system cannot be turned off as it affects all her tenants.
Although this does sound like a lot of emails, the tenant is required under the RTA to pay rent when due, and on time. The landlord is entitled to issue a 14-day notice for non-payment of rent The landlord has provided ledgers of rent and bond money paid and held, as well as rent arrears records for the Tribunal.
There was no evidence provided that the landlord failed to keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant said that the windowsill in the master bedroom around the window was not fixed properly. Photographs were provided.
This area failed the 2024 Healthy Homes report as there was rot damage to the bottom jam and maintenance required to the bay windows. This was repaired and given a pass in the compliance certificate on 26 July 2024.
The tenant told the landlord her ongoing concerns and the landlord emailed a work order through to ‘Exceed’ their repairers. They returned to the landlord saying that that they found nothing wrong.
The landlord has put through a further work order to relook at the area. The tenant feels that nothing has been done to remedy this.
The breach of HHS has been discussed and as part of the requirement this area was repaired. I find that the landlord has attended to the tenants’ requests and is continuing to. Even if I found that there was a breach by the landlord, I would not find that this was an intentional breach because the landlord has been responding to the tenants’ requests.
This claim is dismissed.
Both parties filled applications, and both were mostly successful so the filling fee will not be reimbursed.
The tenant and landlord sought name suppression in their applications and as they were both somewhat successful with their applications this is granted. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878588 — Rent arrears at 74 Karewa Parade, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878588 — Rent arrears at 74 Karewa Parade, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the market rent?

Is the rent and rent increase substantially above the market rate?

What should the rent be?

Was the 90-day notice valid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the market rent?

Is the rent and rent increase substantially above the market rate?

What should the rent be?

Was the 90-day notice valid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions