What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4996009?

The tribunal order states: Both claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4996009?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996009?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11429522-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4996009?

The tribunal order states: Both claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4996009?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996009?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11429522-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Wallace Crescent, Prebbleton, Prebbleton 7604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4996009 — State of repair

Order

Both claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation in respect of discolouration/damage on the kitchen bench top and reimbursement of half of the callout cost to replace the bedroom lights.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for breach of their quiet enjoyment and for failure to maintain the premises.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen benchtop?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The landlord’s evidence indicates that there is discolouration and damage to the kitchen benchtop. Proof of damage by itself however is not sufficient; the landlord bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused during the tenancy.
The material issue is whether the discolouration/damage had been there at the start of the tenancy or not.
The landlord provided property inspection reports and photographs which suggest that the benchtop was not discoloured/damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant also provided photographs taken at the start of the tenancy which showed that there has been discolouration on the benchtop at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant explained that they had always noticed the discolouration since the start of the tenancy and they were surprised and dismayed that the landlord had intended to charge them for the repairs/replacement costs to the benchtop.
The evidence from both parties is on par.
Under the circumstances, I find that the landlord failed to discharge the onus of proof that the damage had occurred during the tenancy. From the evidence, it was equally likely that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy as it was likely also that the damage may not have been there at the start.
Where the evidence is on a level, the onus of proof is not discharged.
For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for replacement and/or repair costs to the benchtop fails. The tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
Despite this finding on the issue of liability, I note for the record that landlord is entitled under section 48 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) to access the premises and get their tradespeople to access the premises to diagnose and satisfy themselves as to how the damage has come about and decide on the appropriate repair or replacement to be carried out.
While the issue of the cause of the damage may not have any material bearing on my above finding on liability, the tenant is advised that failure to allow reasonable access may expose the tenant to breach of section 48(3A) RTA. Is the tenant liable to bear half of the electrician’s cost?
I now consider the landlord’s remaining claim for reimbursement of half of the electrician’s costs for changing the lights. The landlord claims that the tenant had on 15 August 2024 refused to allow the landlord’s electrician to replace the bedroom lights.
However, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the tenant had merely advised the tradesperson to recheck with the landlord on whether the landlord is sure they wanted to install the lights given the quality and type of lights appeared unsuitable or inferior. The tenant had duly allowed the electrician to replace the bathroom lighting at the time.
It was in order for the electrician to immediately call the landlord to confirm their instructions on the exact lights to be replaced and that those lights were not “unsuitable or inferior” at the time. The electrician did not do so but acceded to the tenant’s suggestion and simply left the premises.
In the circumstances, I find that the tenant cannot be made liable to pay half the electrician’s costs.
I now address the tenant’s claims.

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Shuo Chang and Min Wu claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant claim that the property had not been provided at the start of the tenancy in an adequate and tenantable state.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair b) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While the landlord has a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, that duty must have regard to the age and character of the premises.
A tenant also has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made. Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
I find on the evidence that the landlord had generally attended to items requiring maintenance when notified by the tenant, and within a reasonable timeframe.
There is one exception. The landlord failed to replace the plug in the kitchen sink within a reasonable time. There has been a 3 months’ delay in the landlord replacing the plug. I accept the landlord’s explanation that this was due to inadvertence rather than deliberate. Having regard to the de minimis rule, I do not consider it just to make any award of monetary payment to the tenant. I consider the level of inconvenience to the tenant on the kitchen plug to be relatively minor.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Shuo Chang and Min Wu claim 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 maintain that the landlord had intentionally breached their quiet enjoyment of the property in circumstances that amounted to harassment. The tenant emphatically say that the landlord had started a campaign to cause them distress since unfairly blaming them for the damage/discolouration to the benchtop.
I reject the tenant’s assertions, however. I acknowledge that the tenant genuinely feel that that the landlord had acted in bad faith when they exercised their right to inspect the premises on multiple occasions.
There is however little or no objective evidence of harassment by the landlord at all. I find that the landlord, in particular their property managers, have acted professionally in dealing with the tenant.
The fact that the landlord considers the tenant are liable for the damage to the benchtop (which I ultimately found in favour of the tenant), by itself, does not support the allegation of harassment and improper behaviour by the landlord.
As I have set out above, the landlord may give relevant notices to carry out property inspections and instruct tradespeople to carry out repairs at the premises pursuant to section 48 RTA.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages on harassment. Conclusion
In the upshot, none of the parties’ respective claims are successful.
Accordingly, I dismiss both claim and counterclaim.

Order

Both claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation in respect of discolouration/damage on the kitchen bench top and reimbursement of half of the callout cost to replace the bedroom lights.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for breach of their quiet enjoyment and for failure to maintain the premises.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen benchtop?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The landlord’s evidence indicates that there is discolouration and damage to the kitchen benchtop. Proof of damage by itself however is not sufficient; the landlord bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused during the tenancy.
The material issue is whether the discolouration/damage had been there at the start of the tenancy or not.
The landlord provided property inspection reports and photographs which suggest that the benchtop was not discoloured/damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant also provided photographs taken at the start of the tenancy which showed that there has been discolouration on the benchtop at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant explained that they had always noticed the discolouration since the start of the tenancy and they were surprised and dismayed that the landlord had intended to charge them for the repairs/replacement costs to the benchtop.
The evidence from both parties is on par.
Under the circumstances, I find that the landlord failed to discharge the onus of proof that the damage had occurred during the tenancy. From the evidence, it was equally likely that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy as it was likely also that the damage may not have been there at the start.
Where the evidence is on a level, the onus of proof is not discharged.
For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for replacement and/or repair costs to the benchtop fails. The tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
Despite this finding on the issue of liability, I note for the record that landlord is entitled under section 48 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) to access the premises and get their tradespeople to access the premises to diagnose and satisfy themselves as to how the damage has come about and decide on the appropriate repair or replacement to be carried out.
While the issue of the cause of the damage may not have any material bearing on my above finding on liability, the tenant is advised that failure to allow reasonable access may expose the tenant to breach of section 48(3A) RTA. Is the tenant liable to bear half of the electrician’s cost?
I now consider the landlord’s remaining claim for reimbursement of half of the electrician’s costs for changing the lights. The landlord claims that the tenant had on 15 August 2024 refused to allow the landlord’s electrician to replace the bedroom lights.
However, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the tenant had merely advised the tradesperson to recheck with the landlord on whether the landlord is sure they wanted to install the lights given the quality and type of lights appeared unsuitable or inferior. The tenant had duly allowed the electrician to replace the bathroom lighting at the time.
It was in order for the electrician to immediately call the landlord to confirm their instructions on the exact lights to be replaced and that those lights were not “unsuitable or inferior” at the time. The electrician did not do so but acceded to the tenant’s suggestion and simply left the premises.
In the circumstances, I find that the tenant cannot be made liable to pay half the electrician’s costs.
I now address the tenant’s claims.

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Shuo Chang and Min Wu claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant claim that the property had not been provided at the start of the tenancy in an adequate and tenantable state.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair b) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While the landlord has a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, that duty must have regard to the age and character of the premises.
A tenant also has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made. Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
I find on the evidence that the landlord had generally attended to items requiring maintenance when notified by the tenant, and within a reasonable timeframe.
There is one exception. The landlord failed to replace the plug in the kitchen sink within a reasonable time. There has been a 3 months’ delay in the landlord replacing the plug. I accept the landlord’s explanation that this was due to inadvertence rather than deliberate. Having regard to the de minimis rule, I do not consider it just to make any award of monetary payment to the tenant. I consider the level of inconvenience to the tenant on the kitchen plug to be relatively minor.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Shuo Chang and Min Wu claim 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 maintain that the landlord had intentionally breached their quiet enjoyment of the property in circumstances that amounted to harassment. The tenant emphatically say that the landlord had started a campaign to cause them distress since unfairly blaming them for the damage/discolouration to the benchtop.
I reject the tenant’s assertions, however. I acknowledge that the tenant genuinely feel that that the landlord had acted in bad faith when they exercised their right to inspect the premises on multiple occasions.
There is however little or no objective evidence of harassment by the landlord at all. I find that the landlord, in particular their property managers, have acted professionally in dealing with the tenant.
The fact that the landlord considers the tenant are liable for the damage to the benchtop (which I ultimately found in favour of the tenant), by itself, does not support the allegation of harassment and improper behaviour by the landlord.
As I have set out above, the landlord may give relevant notices to carry out property inspections and instruct tradespeople to carry out repairs at the premises pursuant to section 48 RTA.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages on harassment. Conclusion
In the upshot, none of the parties’ respective claims are successful.
Accordingly, I dismiss both claim and counterclaim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996009 — State of repair at 31 Wallace Crescent, Prebbleton, Prebbleton 7604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996009 — State of repair at 31 Wallace Crescent, Prebbleton, Prebbleton 7604

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen benchtop?

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen benchtop?

Did the landlord maintain the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions