What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4885631?

The tribunal order states: Jocelyn (Jing) Lin must pay Jing Zhang and Triston Jones $413.75 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4885631?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885631?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034360-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4885631?

The tribunal order states: Jocelyn (Jing) Lin must pay Jing Zhang and Triston Jones $413.75 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4885631?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885631?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034360-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

94A Jutland Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4885631 — Leaks

Order

Jocelyn (Jing) Lin must pay Jing Zhang and Triston Jones $413.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The bond is to be released to the tenants in full from the Bond Centre.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenants and landlord. DescriptionLandlordTenant Compensation for water leak $940.00 Cleaning following blocked drain $50.00 Compensation: Repair cost $373.75 Compensation for services $200.00 Compensation for leaking shower $100.00 Rent arrears$560.00 Garden work$460.00 Total award$1,020.00$1,663.75 Net award $643.75 Bond $3,760.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $643.75
At the hearing on 23 August 2024 one tenant (Ms Jing Zhang) appeared, as did the landlord (Ms Lin) by telephone and the property manager. Both parties had support people present. The Tribunal and tenant were assisted by an interpreter provided by the Tribunal. We heard the tenant’s claims in full that day, and the hearing was then adjourned to hear the landlord’s claim, which we heard on 5 November 2024. At this second hearing again we had Ms Zhang (in person) and Ms Lin (by telephone), and we were assisted by an interpreter.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced (according to the tenancy agreement) on 9 January 2023, and was a fixed term tenancy to 9 January 2024. The weekly rent was $940.00.
The tenancy agreement records that Home 365 Property Management Limited was an agent of the landlord. The landlord was not disclosed, but I accept the landlord is Jing Lin.
The house has three levels. At the start of the tenancy the landlord’s parents lived in the downstairs rooms for about 6 weeks, which was described as a self-contained studio. There was a separate entrance, but the landlord confirmed that the services used (power, water and internet) were from the tenancy supply.
During the tenancy, there was a water leak into the property, coming from a leak in the roof. There is no dispute about the leaks, but there is a dispute as to the extent of that leak. The landlord contracted with one of the tenants to undertake a repair of the leak. The tenant (Mr Jones) opened a portion of the ceiling and undertook other work, but this did not resolve the leak.
On 2 April 2024 the tenants filed their application with the Tribunal, and subsequently the landlord filed her application.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Compensation for water leak

The tenants seek compensation for the water leak to the sum of $15,000.00, being $250 per week for a total of 60 weeks.
The tenant states that that they moved in on 13 January and on 27 January found a water leak. The tenant called the property manager, and the landlord’s parents were advised. The tenant states that the issues went on for some 7 months, and the issues not finalised until after they moved out. The tenant says that there would be water leaking whenever there was heavy rain. The tenant says when there was heavy rain they could not use the bathroom, laundry and living room.
In response, the landlord states that the tenant has been dishonest. The landlord refers to a heavy rain event and accepts it would leak from a balcony on the top floor of the house. The landlord states that she has a video taken at the end of the tenancy and that it was not leaking then during rain. The landlord states the impacted area was only about 10% of the total floor area. The landlord states that a builder was instructed to assess and fix the leak.
The landlord states the next time the tenant reported a leak was on 9 May 2023. The landlord’s view is that the leak only occurs with particularly heavy rain events.
The landlord considers the extent of the compensation claim is ‘ridiculous’. The landlord states that the builder has undertaken work and refers to his report. The landlord states that originally the tenants sent the builder away because they had COVID, but ultimately the landlord accepted and instructed the roofer to do the repair. When the tenant was advised of the date for the repair to start, the tenant gave notice wanting to move out, and it was agreed the tenancy end date would be 19 April 2024.
In conclusion the tenant says that Mr Jones (who had agreed to undertake a repair of the leak) is not a specialist, but did his best to assist with the problem. Analysis
There is no dispute that there was a water leak from rainwater.
It can be accepted that what the tenants were renting, were premises that did not leak, or to put that another way, the tenants have not received what they were paying rent for – a dry non, non-leasing dwelling.
The landlord requested that tenant Tristan Jones undertake work to repair the leak. A quotation from Mr Jones was provided on 23 July. The landlord accepted that quote, confirming that Mr Jones should proceed to try and fix the leak. The landlord responded that day: Please go ahead with repairing the hole around the gutter outlet first and see if the water leaking stops. We can leave the ceiling plasterboard repairing until we make sure the leaking stops. We accept your quote if the leaking problem is resolved.
The landlord considers that Mr Jones did not get back to the landlord to update on progress.
Mr Jones did some work which looked to have fixed the leak, however it appears that the leak returned. I note an email from Triston Jones of 6 September 2023 stating: Living room ceiling leak update: I now feel that we have given this plenty of time to see if the outside repair work has stoped the leak. At first it appeared that it had worked but then the leak started to slowly return until after some heavy rain it was back to its normal flow. So unfortunately it has not stopped. After carefully concidoring other options within my skill level I think it is now time to ask a roofing company to do some more investigating. They may need to pull up the white cover base on the balcony above. I have spent a total of five hours work investigating and trying to repair this. Whilst it didn’t completely fix the leak I feel this work was still necessary to start the investigation and go some way to help. I will leave the ceiling exposed for inspection by another company. Please feel free to pass my details on to anyone who will need access to the property. I will forward my invoice in a few days to cover five hours at $65.00 per hour plus GST. Thank you for your patients with this matter.
As above, Mr Jones requested that the landlord take over the further work, as he did not feel qualified to do it. The landlord instructed a roofer, who ultimately undertook significant work after the tenancy ended. The deck was uplifted and replaced with another membrane. The roofer provided the following report: Building construction Note 94a Jutland Road Hauraki Auckland We were carrying out the works at above address due to the damaged from the leak membrane deck on the 2nd floor. The water was leaking from the sliding window edge and drainage channel to the mid floor and dropping to the ceiling. We found some damaged timber and some water mark on the top of inside ceiling. These damage only inside the mid floor and did not show on the outside surface which we do not think will affect any other damage and has not cause any mildew at the inside of living room ceiling. Related photos are attached
Based on the evidence before me, I find the tenant has not proven that there was a continuous leak as indicated at the hearing. I consider the most likely situation is that the roof leaked with exceptional weather events.
But there was a water leak intermittently, and this caused inconvenience for the tenants needing to manage this, and for a period of time (much of the tenancy) there was a hole in the ceiling where the ceiling was removed to expose the framing to try to locate the leak.
While the tenant should be compensated, I do not agree the compensation should be at the level claimed. The impact for the tenants would be mild to moderate, but an impact that should be compensated for because the tenants were not getting what they were paying for from the landlord. The best I can do is step back and work out what a fair level of compensation would be. Taking into account factors like the length of the tenancy, the inconvenience to the tenants, and the loss of amenity in the premises which would be limited, I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to compensate the tenant one week of rent, and therefore order the landlord to pay $940.00 compensation. Rent increase refund
The tenant considers that the landlord wrongly increased the rent on 28 February 2023, from $940 to $980 per week. The tenant considers that the landlord should not have increased the rent. The tenant considers that because the premises were leaking, and the premises in a poor standard, the landlord should have increased the rent.
The landlord’s position is that the rent was increased lawfully after a year of the tenancy starting. Analysis
The RTA does allow a landlord to increase rent during a tenancy. The rent cannot be increased within a year of the tenancy starting, but certainly a landlord can increase it following.
The tenant has not identified any procedural breach with how the landlord has increased the tenant’s rent. If the tenant considers there were issues with the water leak, then she is able to get compensation for that, and that would be the correct approach to take, not to require that compensation be provided by way of a rent decrease or non-increase.
This claim is dismissed. Compensation for drain blockage
The tenant states that during the tenancy there was a blockage to the drain, which the landlord claimed was from their hair. The tenant considers that the blockage was caused by a defect with the plumbing at the dwelling. The tenant states that they have incurred costs of around $1,000.00 for this work, but there are no receipts available in relation to this.
The landlord states that a blocked drain is a common problem, noting that when they lived in the house for 10-odd years, they did not have any problem with the drains. The landlord considers that given the low water bills for the tenants, they did not use sufficient water to flush the drains. The landlord says that the landlord arranged plumbers, which the landlord paid for. The landlord disputes that it was the tenants who incurred the unblocking costs, the landlord paid it.
The tenant agrees that the plumber did the unblocking, but states it was the tenants who undertook the general cleaning following that. Analysis
The RTA confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the premises. In my view, if there are drains blocked, in the first instance the landlord would be responsible for unblocking the drains. It would only be if it could be proven that there was some careless action on the part of the tenant that there could be consideration of passing that to the tenant.
The tenant has not established any basis upon which I could order the landlord to pay $1,000.00. There is no receipt showing what the cost incurred was, but I accept the tenants may have needed to undertake some low-level cleaning. But there is no evidence to show the tenants blocked the drains in any careless way. I accept that the tenants needed to clean up the water and material from the blocked drain, but any compensation for that would be modest. On the basis of the evidence available, it is fair to order the landlord to pay $50.00 compensation for that only. Compensation for repairs
The tenant seeks an order that the landlord pay Mr Jones for his time in undertaking the repairs to the leak.
The landlord states that the original email from Mr Jones recorded that there was five hours of work undertaken on the leak (at $65.00 plus GST for that), but she disagrees that she should pay more than that. Analysis
I can see that the landlord has entered into an agreement with Mr Jones to do the work to try to fix the leak. It is fair that Mr Jones be paid for that work, I accept he did his best to try to fix the issue notwithstanding that he was unsuccessful. In the email from Mr Jones of 6 September 2023 Mr Jones advised he was not able to assist further with the work, and would invoice 5 hours at $65.00 per hour excluding GST ($74.75 including GST). That totals $373.75, and I order that to be paid by the landlord.
But I cannot see any basis upon which the landlord should pay more than that amount, as that is the only work established under the repair agreement.
I record that there is no obligation on the tenants to meet with tradespeople. The only obligation is to notify the landlord if there is maintenance needed. From there the landlord is entitled to give notice to enter the property for work to be undertaken, that does not require the tenants to be in attendance.
I also note that Mr Jones had provided a quotation dated 21 July 2023 for $2,558.75, but that included work that has not been undertaken such as covering the hole, plastering and painting the ceiling, which was not completed, so Mr Jones is not able to be paid for that. Compensation for defects with house
The tenant has claimed $2,000.00 compensation, because the tenant says the property was very old and nails were exposed on the decking. The tenant says that a soccer ball was damaged, and there were injuries from the nails.
The landlord disputes this claim and refers to the photographs and report prior to the start of the tenancy, which shows the deck to be in good condition. The landlord considers that any issues with the state of the deck would be from the tenants. Analysis
Based on the photographs of the deck, I am not persuaded that there is evidence of exposed nails, or that the deck was in an unusable state, or that maintenance of the deck was needed.
If there were injuries to any person from the state of the premises, the tenant cannot claim compensation for that in the Tribunal as a result of the ‘ACC bar’. New Zealand has a unique system to cover people who are injured in accidents. We have the benefit of having universal coverage for injuries under the ACC scheme without any requirement for fault, and for that we have traded off the ability to sue a person for any injuries sustained. That means that if the tenant is wanting to claim for any injury, that can only be via the ACC system.
If the tenant found exposed nails that she wanted the landlord to fix as a maintenance issue, then she could have requested that.
This claim has not been established so is dismissed. Compensation for the landlords parents being on the premises
The tenant states that there is a master bedroom that was being used by the landlord’s parents. When the parents moved out, the landlord declined to provide that space to the tenants, because the landlord wanted to either use it for renting to others, or storage. The tenant states that the landlord’s parents would come upstairs without notice, such as when they needed to reset the circuit breaker. The tenant says that the parents were critical about how they were living in the house. Another example is where the tenants had friends over and one of the parents turned up in their pyjamas. The tenants also say that the parents were using the tenant’s power and internet.
The tenant also states that during the tenancy a ‘stranger’ turned up at the house and breached their privacy when the looked in the tenancy and knocked on the window.
The tenant seeks compensation of $1,000.00.
The landlord states that before the tenancy started, the tenants were advised that her parents would be using the self-contained studio for about 6 weeks, and in fact they moved out on 6 March 2023. The landlord states there was a separate entrance, and she paid the water bill until the end of February, and she is happy to pay a contribution to the power bill. The landlord agrees that the internet was also paid by the tenant. The landlord disputes that her parents went upstairs, saying there was a locked door and her parents did not have a key. Any time that her parents went upstairs was when they would have been let upstairs by the tenant.
In relation to the ‘stranger’ the landlord advised that this was a person who was sent around by the landlord to inspect the premises as it was following a storm, and the landlord wanted to make sure the premises were safe. Analysis
There is no problem with there being other dwellings in a tenancy building. For example, if there was a house and a granny flat, providing both are lawful the landlord can rent both separately.
In this case having heard from the parties, and considering the evidence available, there is insufficient evidence to show that the parents went up to the tenancy without consent of the tenants – such as being invited up by the tenants. I accept there was a lockable door. But there is no evidence they went up unlawfully.
The tenant also referred to a ‘stranger’ outside who looked and banged on the window. I accept that the person was sent by the landlord to inspect the premises in relation to a storm. That is a reasonable thing for an absent landlord to do. In any event, a landlord does not need to give the tenant advanced notice in order to come to the premises, the landlord only needs to give notice to enter inside the premises which is not relevant here.
However I do accept that the landlord should pay compensation for the power and internet. It would be difficult to quantify what amount of services would have been used by the parents, also noting that the landlord paid water until the end of February. The best I can do is estimate an amount that may be a fair reflection of compensation for services, and I fix that amount at $200.00. Shower compensation
The tenant says that one of the shower doors did not have a seal, and it would leak water, and the missing seal meant the glass doors would bang together. The tenant says the landlord asked the tenant to buy and fit a seal, but that was the landlord’s job. The tenant seeks $4,000.00 compensation
The landlord says that the tenant only raised a problem with one of the bathrooms. The landlord says that the house was not new, there are wear and tear issues, and the missing seal did not present a safety issue. The landlord does not dispute that she did not fix it. Analysis
The RTA confirms that the landlord must maintain the premises. In this case I accept that the glass shower door was not closing properly, in that the video shows that the door was sitting to the front of the side glass panel, so when the door closed the glass door would hit the glass panel on the side.
I do accept that this would cause water to leak from the door, which no doubt would cause water to leak out of the shower cubical. I accept also that it would require the users of the shower to be more careful because it was possible that if the glass hit forcefully, it would break.
I consider it would be fair to provide a modest level of compensation for the inconvenience incurred by the tenant but the loss here would be minimal. Again it is difficult to quantify what the precise loss would be. But I cannot accept that the reduction in amenity of the premises would be more than $100.00 overall, so that amount is ordered.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Rent arrears

The landlord states that the rent arrears at the end of the tenancy is $560.00, that is rent arrears as of 19 April 2024.
The tenant disputes this claim, on the basis that she moved out on the 15th of April, that being the date the keys were handed over. The tenant states that that day the landlord had workers at the tenancy. If the landlord did not agree with the earlier termination date, they should not have accepted the keys back.
In response, the landlord states that the tenant needed to give 28 days notice to end the tenancy, and the rent arrears is calculated as of that date. The final date agreed by both parties was 19 April. The landlord states that just because keys are returned does not mean rent obligations end.
The tenant then referred to three voice mail messages, that the interpreter read to the Tribunal. The messages record the tenant saying that she would be moving out on 15 April, and that was also supported in text messages. Analysis
The tenancy was a periodic tenancy, so could be terminated by the tenant with 28 days notice. Notice was given, and that took the end date to 19 April. The tenant would be required to pay rent until 19 April 2024.
Certainly the landlord could agree to end the tenancy earlier, but there is no evidence that that landlord did agree to the earlier date. From what I can see, the tenant said to the landlord she was moving out on 15 April, and there is no problem with the tenant doing that. It is common for a tenant to move out earlier than the contractual end date, but the landlord is right, that does not excuse the tenant from paying rent until the contractual end date arrives, which is 19 April in this case.
The landlord had no obligation to warn the tenant when the keys were handed over early, that the tenant would also be liable for rent until 19 April. If the tenant wished to retain possession of the premises until 19 April she could have done so, but just because she has returned possession to the landlord a few days earlier, does not excuse her from being liable for the rent until 19 April. This claim is ordered in full. Compensation for carpet damage
The landlord seeks an order for carpet damage, of $200.00 plus GST, being the amount of the quoted repair cost from TD Home Limited. The landlord states the house has been looked after and well maintained. The carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy, but when the premises returned there was a burn in the carpet to the level 2 living room.
In response, the tenant says that when they first moved into the premises it was very dirty, including the carpet. Further the tenant says that they funded commercial cleaning. The carpet damage was only raised two months after they had moved out. Over that two-month period there were contractors coming in. But the tenant agrees that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy.
In response, the landlord says that nobody was in the house after the tenant moved out. The landlord says she went back on 24 May, and that was when she took the photograph provided to the Tribunal. The landlord disputes that the workers were in the living room area to have caused the burn. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage was caused 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.
In this case I find the landlord has not established the claim. From the evidence available, the tenant returned possession of the premises to the landlord on 15 April 2024, and then the landlord had contractors in the premises, and later found the burn mark on 24 May 2024 – that is about 5 ½ weeks after the tenant left.
It is possible that the tenant caused the burn, but it must also be possible that a contractor caused the burn during the intervening work at the tenancy. But it is the landlord who must prove her case, and given the state of the evidence, I find she has not done so. As this claim is not proven by the landlord, it is dismissed. Compensation for cleaning costs
The landlord states that the gardens were handed over to the tenants in a good condition, and they were tidy, but that is not how it was returned. The landlord seeks compensation for the garden work that would be needed to address the state of the premises. Again the landlord refers to the quotation from TD Home Limited, to the sum of $400.00 plus GST.
In response, the tenant says there is no garden for the premises, only a deck and some garden boxes, but those areas were used by the landlord’s parents for planting of vegetables. The tenant says that the deck was in poor condition.
In conclusion the landlord says the premises were in good condition when the premises were handed over to the tenant. The landlord considers that the tenants have not done even basic cleaning to keep the deck in good condition. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In this case, I have considered the photographs provided by the landlord showing the deck area at the start of the tenancy, and how the deck area was at the end of the tenancy. This area includes garden boxes. I am satisfied that the gardens were overgrown, and that the tenant did not return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, and the tenant must therefore be liable for the costs incurred with returning it to that accepted state. The quotation from the company was $400.00 plus GST, and that does seem reasonable given the extent of the work that would be needed for that work around the deck and planter boxes. Unlawful use of premises in operating a business
The landlord seeks compensation for the tenants using the residential premises for a business activity. The landlord states that the premises are in a quiet residential area. The landlord states that the residential address was used for advertising the tenant’s business, TJ Plastering, and that was without the approval of the landlord. Even after the tenancy ended, the address was recorded in Google as the address for the business.
The landlord also states that on 18 November 2023 the tenant recorded in her social media page that she was in business, and selling decking boards from the tenancy. The landlord also refers to the photographs where a truckload of decking board were being unloaded on the driveway, and later stored in the garage. In this case the neighbours had made complaints about noise and vehicles in the driveway.
It was submitted that the RTA does not allow a business to operate from the tenancy, and there could have been an effect on the landlord’s insurance.
The landlord seeks an order that the tenants pay compensation of $200.00 per week for 30 weeks, and “compensation” of $5,000.00 for using the premises for an unlawful purpose. The total claim being $11,000.00
The tenant states that the business was registered at the tenancy address because was needed in order to register the business.
The tenant states that the photographs were taken from her private social media account.
The tenant agrees that they had one episode of receiving the decking material at the tenancy. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that the tenant’s partner had TJ Plastering registered using the tenancy address, and also no dispute over the delivery and disposal (presumably sale) of the decking material.
However the primary consideration is whether those activities breached any obligations held by the tenant, and for these reasons I find they did not.
The primary obligations between the landlord and tenant are those found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 40 sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that the tenant shall: ensure that the premises are occupied principally for residential purposes
The term ‘principally’ is not defined in the RTA, so must be given its ordinary English interpretation. The term ‘principally’ is a derivative of the work ‘principal’ which in turn arises from the Latin word principalis, meaning ‘first, original’. 1 In short, the obligation on the tenant is to use the premises primarily or mainly for residential use, and if the main or first use was no longer residential, then a breach arises.
That was also the interpretation taken by the Tribunal in the case of Franklin Real Estate v Anderson [1993] NZTT 828. In that case, the adjudicator needed to consider a case where the landlord alleged that the tenant was dealing in car parts from the premises. Adjudicator Tremewan stated: Mr. Varney submitted that he suspected that the premises were being used for “other than residential purposes”. This submission is rejected out of hand. It is obvious that the Andersons live at the premises, and this would be plain to any person who carried out any sort of inspection 1 See Oxford English Dictionary. at the property. The Residential Tenancies Act (1986) does state at s 40 (1) (b) that; “the Tenant shall ensure that the premises are occupied principally for residential purposes” but this clearly means that the tenant must mainly use the premises as a place to live. It does not mean that a tenant may not carry out any commercial activity at all. In any event, as a finding of fact, the Tribunal holds that any commercial activity which might have taken place has been of a very minor nature. As the Applicant's own application states, it was “suspected” only that there was commercial activity, and certainly no substantive evidence has been produced by the Applicant to substantiate this allegation.
Similarly, in the text ‘Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand’, the author, Steward Benson, states: A tenant must ensure that the tenancy premises are occupied principally for residential purposes. It is sufficient if the premises are mainly used for residential purposes. Premises do not cease to be residential because of a minor commercial use, such as storage of car parts in a shed on a rural property, a training course operated from part of the tenancy premises and a small, owner-operated brothel from premises where the tenant also lived. 2
The landlord has not convinced me that even having registered a business using the tenancy address, or the storage and disposal of the decking from the premises, moved the premise away from being principally used for residential purposes, and therefore I find the tenant has not breached her obligations to the landlord.
I record for completeness, that when the tenant rented the premises from the landlord, they obtained a right of quiet enjoyment. That principle means that the tenants can live in the premises how they choose. They do not need the landlord’s permission for anything unless they would otherwise breach some legal obligation with the landlord. Therefore the tenants did not need the permission of the landlord in order to operate either business from the premises.
This claim must therefore be dismissed.

BOND

The bond is to be released in full to the tenants. 2 The examples Mr Benson gave related to cited cases in the Tenancy Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885631 — Leaks at 94A Jutland Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885631 — Leaks at 94A Jutland Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

BOND

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

BOND