What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4945722?

The tribunal order states: Eliza Wei must pay Luis Antonio Mura $767.00 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4945722?

Compensation: Bond: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Carpet: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945722?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10963172-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4945722?

The tribunal order states: Eliza Wei must pay Luis Antonio Mura $767.00 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4945722?

Compensation: Bond: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Carpet: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945722?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10963172-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

228 Western Hill Drive, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4945722 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945722 — net $767.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Carpet	$240.00	Carpet
Compensation: Bond	$500.00	Bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	43. Mr Mura has been partially successful in his application and I will award him the filing fee.
Net award	$767.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$767.00

Mr Mura rented a cottage / sleep out at 228 Western Hills Drive. The landlord Ms Wei lives in a house at the same address, with other boarders / flatmates.

Mr Mura’s application seeks refund of the bond and other costs.

There was a Tenancy Tribunal hearing on 28 August 2024. That hearing took place by video conference. The only issue addressed at that hearing was jurisdiction. The question before the Tribunal was whether Mr Mura was a flatmate / boarder or a tenant. The relevance of that question is that if Mr Mura was a flatmate / boarder then the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply to his tenancy and the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear his application.

On 4 September 2024, the Tenancy Tribunal (Adjudicator Morgan) released a decision. Adjudicator Morgan made a finding that the Mr Mura was a tenant. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applied to his tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear his application.

The 4 September 2024 order: a. Requested a further hearing, to take place in person at the Whangarei court. b. Directed Mr Mura to provide an updated summary of his claim to the Tribunal within 5 days. c. Directed Ms Wei to provide a bullet point response to the tenant’s claims within 5 days of receiving the summary.

The second hearing took place in Whangarei on 16 October 2024. Both parties attended the hearing.

Unfortunately, Mr Mura did not comply with the direction in the 4 September order. He did not provide a summary of his claim within 5 days of the order, or at any time after that.

Rather than adjourn these already drawn-out proceedings, I asked Mr Mura to make a list of his claims at the start of the hearing. I told Ms Wei that we would attempt to work through Mr Mura’s claims at the hearing, but if at any point she felt disadvantaged by not having received the summary in advance of the hearing, she could ask for an adjournment.

Mr Mura’s list was as follows: a. Repair of my car $5,995. b. Carpet put in the room $720. c. New water blaster covered in paint. d. My bond $500. e. Harassment (false allegations, phone calls and messages early hours of the morning). Car

Mr Mura was overseas for a period of time during his tenancy.

When he returned, he discovered that his vehicle was damaged.

Mr Mura suspects that Ms Wei either caused the damage herself, or that she knows who caused the damage and is not telling him. Mr Mura suspects this because: a. There was animosity between himself and Ms Wei. b. When he got back to the property after his trip away, Ms Wei immediately asked him to check his car and make sure he was satisfied with the condition of it. Mr Mura considered this to be strange and suspicious behaviour.

Ms Wei said that she did not damage the car and she doesn’t how the damage happened. She asked Mr Mura to check his car because he had been away for a long time, and she is away from the house a lot due to work commitments.

Landlords have no particular legal duty to care for / protect their tenant’s belongings.

Clearly Ms Wei would be liable for the damage if she caused it herself, whether that action was intentional or careless. However, there is no evidence of this beyond Mr Mura’s suspicion.

This part of Mr Mura’s claim is not proven. Carpet

When Mr Mura was overseas, Ms Wei had some building work done on the cottage to add an extension.

Mr Mura said that: a. He wanted, and expected, carpet to be laid in that area. b. Ms Wei refused to pay for carpet. c. For his own comfort and well-being, he was forced to pay for the carpet himself. d. The cost to him was $720.00.

Ms Wei said that she did intend to put carpet in the extension, but she was going to her own supplier and the cost would only be around $300.00. She said that Mr Mura acted on his own initiative, without her consent, to put carpet in that area.

In tenancy law: a. Tenants cannot make alterations to the premises without the landlord’s consent. 1 b. In some circumstances, tenants can require landlords to reimburse them the cost of necessary repairs (if the state of unrepair “is likely to cause injury to 1 Section 42, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent”, and if the tenant has contacted the landlord about the need for repairs, or has made all reasonable attempts to do so). 2

In this instance: a. Mr Mura acted on his own initiative. b. The lack of carpet is not a ‘repair’ issue. The uncarpeted area was an extension to the tenanted premises. c. Mr Mura’s action has improved the premises and Ms Wei has retained the benefit of that improvement. d. There is no legal basis for Mr Mura to require Ms Wei to reimburse him for the cost of the carpet, but it is appropriate to make some award of compensation to reflect the betterment that Ms Wei has received.

I will award one-third of the cost of the carpet, which is $240.00. Water blaster

Mr Mura said that Ms Wei borrowed his water blaster and returned it in a damaged condition (it has some white paint splashed on it).

Ms Wei said that Mr Mura offered her the use of the water blaster, and she used it for one day. She then put the water blaster in the place where Mr Mura asked her to leave it, and she does not know how it came to be damaged.

Again, tenancy law is not relevant here. The general law of bailment applies. A person who is in possession of another person’s property has a duty to take reasonable care of it.

I do not know, and Mr Mura has no way of proving, that the damage occurred when the water blaster was in Ms Wei’s care and control.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Bond

The tenancy has ended.

Ms Wei wants to keep the bond on the basis that there is some damage to the property, and also power costs.

The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. 2 Section 45(1)(d) RTA

Ms Wei has had adequate opportunity to file her own application if she is seeking costs at the end of the tenancy. It would be unjust to delay the release of the bond.

Ms Wei must refund the bond to Mr Mura. She may bring her own separate application if she thinks that Mr Mura is liable for any repairs or power costs. Harassment

Landlords must not cause of permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their tenants. A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 3

Mr Mura said that Ms Wei harassed him by: a. Making false allegations about his behaviour. b. Sending him messages late at night or in the early hours of the morning.

The argument about false allegations relates to some of the statements (written and oral) that Ms Wei submitted for these proceedings. In those statements Ms Wei makes various allegations about Mr Mura’s behaviour.

Ms Wei, of course, says that the allegations are true. Mr Mura says that they are false.

For me to make a finding that the allegations constituted harassment by Ms Wei I would have to be satisfied that: a. The allegations are proven to be false; and b. Ms Wei knew that they were false, and she made them solely for the purpose of causing Mr Mura distress.

I have no evidence beyond Ms Wei’s alleging the behaviour and Mr Mura denying it.

There is not sufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that the allegations constituted harassment of Mr Mura.

Ms Wei sent Mr Mura several messages via WhatsApp when she was in Hong Kong. Because of the time difference, the messages arrived during the night in New Zealand.

I agree that it would have been polite for Ms Wei to take the time difference into account, and to not send messages during the night time in New Zealand. However I also accept Ms Wei’s point that Mr Mura could turn off or mute his 3 Section 38 RTA phone at night and she did not expect him to reply to the messages until the morning.

This is a very minor interference with Mr Mura’s peace and privacy, and it does not warrant an award of compensation or exemplary damages. Filing fee, name suppression

Mr Mura has been partially successful in his application and I will award him the filing fee. 4

Mr Mura sought name suppression. The Tenancy Tribunal may grant name suppression: a. If the party seeking name suppression has “wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings”; or b. To any party, having regard to the interests of the party and to the public interest.

In this instance: a. Mr Mura has not wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings. b. There are no particular risk of harm or sensitivity of subject matter issues that outweigh the public interest consideration.

The request for name suppression is declined.

Ms Wei is to pay Mr Mura $767.00.

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945722 — net $767.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Carpet	$240.00	Carpet
Compensation: Bond	$500.00	Bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	43. Mr Mura has been partially successful in his application and I will award him the filing fee.
Net award	$767.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$767.00