What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5200172?

The tribunal order states: Wayne Bruce Hobbs and Richard Vaughan Smith as Trustees of BMWS 377

How much money was awarded in case 5200172?

Compensation: Curtain track as agree…: $41.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $449.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: plumbing invoice as ag…: $121.90 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Plumbing invoice as ag…: $675.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200172?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200172?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11788099-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5200172?

The tribunal order states: Wayne Bruce Hobbs and Richard Vaughan Smith as Trustees of BMWS 377

How much money was awarded in case 5200172?

Compensation: Curtain track as agree…: $41.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $449.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: plumbing invoice as ag…: $121.90 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Plumbing invoice as ag…: $675.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200172?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200172?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11788099-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

377 Main North Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5200172 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5200172 — net $1,287.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Fire service and repair as agreed	$449.50	Fire service and repair as agreed
Compensation: Plumbing invoice as agreed	$675.29	Plumbing invoice as agreed
Compensation: plumbing invoice as agreed	$121.90	plumbing invoice as agreed
Compensation: Curtain track as agreed	$41.00	Curtain track as agreed
Net award	$1,287.69
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,287.69

Order

Wayne Bruce Hobbs and Richard Vaughan Smith as Trustees of BMWS 377 Trust must pay Debbie George $1,287.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The parties are reminded that they must comply with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) in relation to healthy homes standards, fibre installation, landlord’s rights of entry and all other aspects of the Act as far as they apply to the tenancy.
All other claims are dismissed or withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Hobbs attended for the landlord.
This has been a long-term tenancy commending in May 2015.
Until recently the tenancy has been managed by Mr Hobbs’ sister (the manager) and the tenant has been accustomed to dealing in an informal and friendly way with her.
The tenant has previously attended to some repairs and maintenance herself with the agreement of the manager and there has been an easy relationship between them.
In September 2024 the tenant and the manager had a meeting where a number of matters were discussed between them and a path for resolution of various repairs was agreed.
The manager referred this plan to the Landlord and Mr Hobbs (a builder by trade) wanted to attend the property himself to confirm the required works.
He put a letter in the tenant’s letterbox in mid-December 2024 to introduce himself and provide contact details and suggested that they met in the New Year to make plans to address the repairs.
The tenant said that she did not receive the letter.
This letter was followed up by an email in February suggesting a date for an inspection. There was no response to this email and the tenant said she had only recently found it in her email folders.
Mr Hobbs then visited the property and made an arrangement with the tenant that he would return the following day to check the required repairs and have the property revalued but was denied entry when he arrived as arranged.
The landlord then made this application to the Tribunal to which the tenant filed a cross application referring to various matters that had not been attended to and asking that the manger alone deal with the tenancy.
The tenant also issued a 14-day notice to remedy various matters which had been the subject of her plan of September 2024 agreed with the manager.
The tenant felt that she had been caught in a family matter and wished to continue to engage with the manager as she had happily done throughout the previous 10 years.
The landlord now claims that the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where entry is refused a tenant may, under certain circumstances, be liable for exemplary damages.
The landlord is not seeking damages in this case and no damages are appropriate here as the tenant was genuinely confused as to who had this right to enter as she believed that her landlord was the manager and the manager only.
At the hearing the Mr Hobbs produced a document signed by the trustee owners of the property removing the manager from her role and appointing Mr Hobbs as the new contact person for the property.
The tenant accepted that Mr Hobbs and the other trustee were the legal owners of the property and that she would be dealing with Mr Hobbs in regard to all tenancy issues from now on.
The parties acknowledged that this had been something of a difficult transition but accepted the path forward.
The parties will agree on a general timeframe for regular inspections and attendance to regular maintenance works going forward (servicing of fire and clearing of gutters, for example).
The landlord will attend to any urgent work required at the property (for example, drainage issues and all other healthy homes requirements) in a timely way.
The landlord will advise the tenant of any scheduled works to ensure that she has sufficient notice of any repairs or maintenance (as required by the Act).
The tenant wishes to have fibre installed and the landlord will ensure he complies with the requirements of the Act in relation to the proposed installation.
The landlord will also ensure he complies with council requirements (if any) in relation to work required on a tree at the property which may be protected.
The landlord will have a healthy homes assessment completed and any required works attended to as required by the Act and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The tenant will ensure that she understands and complies with her obligations in relation to the landlord’s right to inspect the tenancy address on a regular basis and to access the premises for repairs and maintenance.
The above paragraphs address many of the issues raised in the tenant’s cross application and these points were well understood by the parties before the hearing ended.
The tenant withdrew a claim of breach of quiet enjoyment and there was insufficient evidence presented to make a finding of harassment in this matter in any case.
The tenant also withdrew a claim for $15,000 for compensation or exemplary damages and, in any case, no evidence was provided to support this claim.
The tenant also claims compensation for a number of items of repair and maintenance which she had paid for with the expectation of being reimbursed.
The amount totals $1,287.69 and the landlord accepted responsibility for this amount at the hearing.
The amount, detailed in the table above, is ordered by consent.
As this was more a matter of misunderstanding between the parties than any serious or intentional breach of the Act by either party, it is not appropriate to award costs, and therefore they lie where they fall.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5200172 — net $1,287.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Fire service and repair as agreed	$449.50	Fire service and repair as agreed
Compensation: Plumbing invoice as agreed	$675.29	Plumbing invoice as agreed
Compensation: plumbing invoice as agreed	$121.90	plumbing invoice as agreed
Compensation: Curtain track as agreed	$41.00	Curtain track as agreed
Net award	$1,287.69
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,287.69

Order

Wayne Bruce Hobbs and Richard Vaughan Smith as Trustees of BMWS 377 Trust must pay Debbie George $1,287.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The parties are reminded that they must comply with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) in relation to healthy homes standards, fibre installation, landlord’s rights of entry and all other aspects of the Act as far as they apply to the tenancy.
All other claims are dismissed or withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Hobbs attended for the landlord.
This has been a long-term tenancy commending in May 2015.
Until recently the tenancy has been managed by Mr Hobbs’ sister (the manager) and the tenant has been accustomed to dealing in an informal and friendly way with her.
The tenant has previously attended to some repairs and maintenance herself with the agreement of the manager and there has been an easy relationship between them.
In September 2024 the tenant and the manager had a meeting where a number of matters were discussed between them and a path for resolution of various repairs was agreed.
The manager referred this plan to the Landlord and Mr Hobbs (a builder by trade) wanted to attend the property himself to confirm the required works.
He put a letter in the tenant’s letterbox in mid-December 2024 to introduce himself and provide contact details and suggested that they met in the New Year to make plans to address the repairs.
The tenant said that she did not receive the letter.
This letter was followed up by an email in February suggesting a date for an inspection. There was no response to this email and the tenant said she had only recently found it in her email folders.
Mr Hobbs then visited the property and made an arrangement with the tenant that he would return the following day to check the required repairs and have the property revalued but was denied entry when he arrived as arranged.
The landlord then made this application to the Tribunal to which the tenant filed a cross application referring to various matters that had not been attended to and asking that the manger alone deal with the tenancy.
The tenant also issued a 14-day notice to remedy various matters which had been the subject of her plan of September 2024 agreed with the manager.
The tenant felt that she had been caught in a family matter and wished to continue to engage with the manager as she had happily done throughout the previous 10 years.
The landlord now claims that the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where entry is refused a tenant may, under certain circumstances, be liable for exemplary damages.
The landlord is not seeking damages in this case and no damages are appropriate here as the tenant was genuinely confused as to who had this right to enter as she believed that her landlord was the manager and the manager only.
At the hearing the Mr Hobbs produced a document signed by the trustee owners of the property removing the manager from her role and appointing Mr Hobbs as the new contact person for the property.
The tenant accepted that Mr Hobbs and the other trustee were the legal owners of the property and that she would be dealing with Mr Hobbs in regard to all tenancy issues from now on.
The parties acknowledged that this had been something of a difficult transition but accepted the path forward.
The parties will agree on a general timeframe for regular inspections and attendance to regular maintenance works going forward (servicing of fire and clearing of gutters, for example).
The landlord will attend to any urgent work required at the property (for example, drainage issues and all other healthy homes requirements) in a timely way.
The landlord will advise the tenant of any scheduled works to ensure that she has sufficient notice of any repairs or maintenance (as required by the Act).
The tenant wishes to have fibre installed and the landlord will ensure he complies with the requirements of the Act in relation to the proposed installation.
The landlord will also ensure he complies with council requirements (if any) in relation to work required on a tree at the property which may be protected.
The landlord will have a healthy homes assessment completed and any required works attended to as required by the Act and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The tenant will ensure that she understands and complies with her obligations in relation to the landlord’s right to inspect the tenancy address on a regular basis and to access the premises for repairs and maintenance.
The above paragraphs address many of the issues raised in the tenant’s cross application and these points were well understood by the parties before the hearing ended.
The tenant withdrew a claim of breach of quiet enjoyment and there was insufficient evidence presented to make a finding of harassment in this matter in any case.
The tenant also withdrew a claim for $15,000 for compensation or exemplary damages and, in any case, no evidence was provided to support this claim.
The tenant also claims compensation for a number of items of repair and maintenance which she had paid for with the expectation of being reimbursed.
The amount totals $1,287.69 and the landlord accepted responsibility for this amount at the hearing.
The amount, detailed in the table above, is ordered by consent.
As this was more a matter of misunderstanding between the parties than any serious or intentional breach of the Act by either party, it is not appropriate to award costs, and therefore they lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200172 — Leaks at 377 Main North Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200172 — Leaks at 377 Main North Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions