What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5068838?

The tribunal order states: Reliance Property Management Limited must pay Arnold D'costa $227.00

How much money was awarded in case 5068838?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068838?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11241548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5068838?

The tribunal order states: Reliance Property Management Limited must pay Arnold D'costa $227.00

How much money was awarded in case 5068838?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068838?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11241548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

114A Princes Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5068838 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5068838 — net $227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$200.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$227.00
Bond	$3,080.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$227.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations.

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Refund of bond

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Breach of quiet enjoyment

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) RTA.

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 claims that on 6 June 2024, he was contacted by the landlord who requested to enter the property that day to complete a valuation. The tenant claims that he gave permission to the landlord to visit the property to complete a valuation, but warned that it was not as clean and tidy as it would usually be. The tenant claims that the landlord advised them that this was fine and that they would be at the property within 35 minutes. The tenant claims that after the landlord visited the property for the valuation, they raised concerns about the cleanliness and alleged damage to the garage door. The tenant claims he was sent a 14-day notice to remedy these two issues that same day and provided a copy to the Tribunal.

The tenant takes issue with the short notice given by the landlord and claims that the landlord used the visit for a different purpose than that which the tenant gave permission for.

The tenant gave the landlord permission to enter the premises at short notice and therefore, the landlord was not in breach of the tenancy agreement or RTA. See section 48(1)(a).

I accept the tenant’s claim that the landlord used the visit for a different purpose than that which the tenant gave permission for. The landlord stated the purpose of the visit was to complete a valuation, not an inspection, which the tenant agreed to. Notwithstanding this, the landlord has taken the opportunity to use his visit to the property to conduct an informal inspection and issued the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy the same day. In doing so, I find that the landlord has impinged upon the tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises.

The tenant also claims that the landlord organised to complete three inspections with the tenant on 29 June 2024, 10 July 2024 and 13 July 2024. The tenant claims the landlord did not complete any of these inspections and that in respect of the two later inspections, he took time off work and waited around all day at the property with no communication from the landlord.

The landlord states that the inspection notice sent to the tenant required the tenant to be home or to advise the landlord beforehand if they were not going to be home. The landlord claims that in respect of the first visit, no one was home and they did not have the code to enter the property. Therefore, the inspection could not be completed. In regards to the other two inspections, the landlord was unable to advise why they did not proceed.

The tenant claims that the landlord should have known the code to enter the property as it was given to the tenant by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and had not been changed. The tenant claims that they took time off work and rearranged family commitments on 10 July 2024 and 13 July 2024. The tenant claims they waited at the property all day for the landlord with no visit or communication until late in the day.

In failing to complete two inspections and not communicating promptly with the tenant about any cancellation, I find that the landlord has impinged upon the tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises. The tenant was unable to leave the property for most of the day on two occasions within a short period of time because they were waiting for the landlord to complete an inspection, which never occurred.

Although I consider that the landlord has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment with the above actions, I do not consider that the landlord’s actions amount to harassment. Therefore, I decline to make an award for exemplary damages. I do however, make a modest award of $200.00 in favour of the tenant to reflect the landlord’s breach and effect this had on the tenant. Filing fee

Because Arnold D'costa has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5068838 — net $227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$200.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$227.00
Bond	$3,080.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$227.00