What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994869?

The tribunal order states: Moana McDonald must pay Kirsty Hannigan and Shane Hannigan $1,215.00

How much money was awarded in case 4994869?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,715.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994869?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11156192-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994869?

The tribunal order states: Moana McDonald must pay Kirsty Hannigan and Shane Hannigan $1,215.00

How much money was awarded in case 4994869?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,715.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994869?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11156192-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Mersey Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994869 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994869 — net $1,215.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 December 2024	$2,715.00		Rent arrears to 9 December 2024
Exemplary damages		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,715.00	$1,500.00
Net award	$1,215.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,215.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994869 — net $1,215.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 December 2024	$2,715.00		Rent arrears to 9 December 2024
Exemplary damages		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,715.00	$1,500.00
Net award	$1,215.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,215.00

Order

Moana McDonald must pay Kirsty Hannigan and Shane Hannigan $1,215.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on 2 December 2024 by telephone.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of the landlords’ obligations including an unlawful and retaliatory termination notice.
The landlord claims rent arrears and compensation for damage to the premises.
The tenancy began in October 2021. It has been a contentious tenancy and there have been previous applications to the Tribunal.
On 17 August 2024 the landlords were at the premises to investigate concerns that the tenant had about the safety of some electrical outlets. There was a confrontation after the tenant made a personal remark to the landlords. The landlords left and they served the tenant with a termination notice later that same day on the ground that they intended occupying the premises.
The tenant did not accept that the notice was genuine, and she refused to vacate the premises. The landlords have since withdrawn the notice. The Termination Notice Law
Under Section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
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. Evidence and Discussion
The landlords live in Dunedin where they own a home. They have owned the premises in Oamaru since 2021.
Mr Hannigan said that his employment in Dunedin ended and there was an opportunity of employment in Oamaru. His intention was to live in the premises after his move there.
There is no written evidence of the job opportunity in Oamaru. There is no formal offer of employment, an employment agreement or any written communications regarding the job opportunity.
He said that he has now obtained employment elsewhere and he intends moving there.
He said that he needed the premises to be available for him before he could commit to the Oamaru job, and when it became obvious that the tenant did not intend moving out, he did not pursue the job further.
When it became obvious that the tenant did not intend complying with the termination notice, the landlords could have filed an application in this Tribunal for an order for possession based on the notice. But they did not do that.
The landlords denied the tenant’s claim that the termination notice was retaliatory. They said that they had decided on the move to Oamaru between “three and six months” ago and they intended discussing their intentions with the tenant in person on 17 August. When the situation became disagreeable, they chose to leave, and they did not have the discussion with the tenant about termination that they intended to have.
Taking all this together I am satisfied that the termination notice was not genuine. It is more likely, in my view, that the notice was a reaction to the tenant’s personal remark, which the landlords took exception to, and which was probably the last straw for the landlords following a disputative tenancy. The landlord’s displeasure with the way that the tenant was treating the premises may also have been a factor.
I find it difficult to accept that Mr Hannigan would consider that he had a real opportunity of employment in Oamaru without so much as an email from the prospective employer let alone a written offer of a job or better still a contract of employment.
I also don’t accept the explanation that the job was dependant on having vacant possession of the premises. If Mr Hannigan wanted the job, I would have expected him to secure it and, as I have said, he could then have taken steps to obtain possession of the premises. With evidence of the job secured, the landlords would have had no difficulty obtaining a possession order from the Tribunal.
I find, therefore, that the landlords gave the termination notice knowing that they were not entitled to do so. That is an unlawful act.
The tenant asserts that the notice was also retaliatory. As I have said, I think the main reason for the notice was the tenant’s personal remark that offended the landlords. There is no evidence that the tenant was asserting any right against the landlords that could have instigated the notice. I therefore reject the claim that the notice was retaliatory.
Giving an unlawful termination notice is a serious breach of the Act and the high level of exemplary damages that can be awarded for it reflects that. I accept that it caused the tenant considerable upset and stress. I also note that the landlords withdrew the notice.
I note as well that the tenant has not helped herself in some respects and the landlords have had valid reasons to be concerned about the tenant’s behaviour. Her remark to the landlords was unnecessary and ill judged.
Taking all relevant things into account, I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the range in the sum of $1,500. Smoke Alarms
The tenant has not proved that the premises did not have compliant smoke alarms. The landlords’ Healthy Homes (HH) report states that the alarms in the premises expire in 2024. That contradicts the landlords’ evidence that they bought and installed compliant alarms at the start of the tenancy. Alarms must last at least 10 years and they will have, at least, a date of manufacture on them. But the tenant has not provided evidence to prove that the alarms are not compliant. I suggest that the tenant checks the alarms to see when they are due to be replaced. Insurance Statement
There was no insurance statement in the tenancy agreement and that is a breach of the Act. The landlords have now provided evidence of their insurance and the applicable excess. The information is required to inform the tenant what the limit of their liability is for carelessly causing damage to the premises.
In the context of this case, I do not find that the breach warrants an award of exemplary damages. Healthy Homes (HH) Statement
I accept the landlords’ evidence that they provided a HH report to the tenant with the tenancy agreement and thereby complied with their obligations in respect of HH information. Rent Increase
The landlord served notice of rent increase on the tenant which appeared to backdate the date that the increase took effect. This was obviously a typographical error. The landlords had put 2023 when it should have been 2024. I don’t accept that the tenant was misled by that and so I find that the notice was not unlawful. Electrical
The tenant complained that she was receiving electric shocks when she plugged appliances into certain outlets in the premises. Mr Hannigan, who is a qualified electrician, said that he tested the plugs and found them to be safe. Two plugs needed repair but that has not been done after the tenant directed the landlords to leave the premises on 17 September. The tenant should allow the landlords to complete this work. Healthy Homes Standards
There was no real evidence that the premises did not comply with current HH standards. There were photographs which the tenant relied on to show that there were unreasonable draughts in the premises, but they did not establish that. They showed some gaps but not that the gaps caused draughts. They did not show a clear path for air to pass through creating a draught. The landlords intend carrying out an inspection and that will be an opportunity for the tenant to point out any problem areas.
The HH report confirmed that the heating in the living area was compliant.
There was evidence that the ground moisture barrier had moved slightly. I accept that the landlords were not aware of that, and they have not had the opportunity to correct it. The tenant should allow the landlords to do so. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant complains that the landlords asked her to have the carpets professionally cleaned. That is not a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Whether the carpets need professionally cleaning is a question of fact that would have to be decided by this Tribunal if it is disputed. Even if the landlords are mistaken, simply making a request is not wrongful. The Landlord’s Application Rent
The landlord produced a rent statement to prove the amount of rent arrears. The tenant did not dispute the statement. I find that there are rent arrears in the sum of $2,715 to 9 December. I understand that the landlords have informed the Tribunal that the arrears have increased since the hearing and they enquired about terminating the tenancy. There is no claim for termination in the landlord’s application and so I cannot consider termination. I can only make an order for payment of the arrears. The landlord will have to make another application if they wish to claim termination or additional arrears. Fire Damage
The tenant plugged an electric scooter into a socket in the premises to charge it. She had bought it second hand from a friend and had only charged it once and found that it did not hold it charge. She left the house and a short time later a fire occurred at the charging point on the scooter. It set fire to a stool and caused damage to a wall. Fortunately, her children were home, and they were able to suppress the fire and the Fire Service attended and put it out. The landlords claim their insurance excess for the damage the fire caused.
Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damages the premises. When damage to the premises occurs during the tenancy, it is presumed to be the tenant’s responsibility, but the tenant may disprove that with evidence.
The issue here is whether this was careless damage or just an unfortunate event.
The landlords suggest that the tenant should have had the scooter checked for electrical safety. They point out that it was second hand, and the tenant should not have assumed that it was safe to charge it where it could cause a fire and damage the premises. I can see some force in that argument.
The legal test is whether the tenant acted as a reasonable and prudent person in her situation would have acted. Ideally, she should have had the scooter checked to ensure that it was electrically safe and safe in other respects. But would a reasonable and prudent person in her situation be expected to do so?
I’m sure that there are many people who would not have the scooter checked in that situation. If there was no reason to think that it was not safe to charge it, many people would probably assume that it was. She had charged it once without any problem. Of course, what most people would do is not the decider. It is what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the circumstances.
I find that a reasonable and prudent person would not have had the scooter electrically checked before charging it. There is no evidence that there was any reason for the tenant to think that the scooter was not safe to charge. She said that she bought it from a friend. I would not expect the friend to have sold it to her if she had any reason to think that it was not safe.
If follows that the fire was not caused by the tenant’s carelessness. It was an unexpected and unfortunate event. Fortunately, the consequences were not more serious. This claim must therefore be dismissed. Other Issues
There are other issues concerning damage to the premises and cleaning which are not claimed. I gave some guidance to the parties as how they are likely to be resolved and I hope that at or after the landlords’ inspection they can be resolved without more ado. Filing Fees
Both sides have had some success and so I make no award of filing fees. Result
The award of exemplary damages is set off against the rent arrears and the tenant must pay the balance due. All other claims are dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenant has had limited success and there is no good reason to grant her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994869 — Rent arrears at 17 Mersey Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994869 — Rent arrears at 17 Mersey Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions