What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226594?

The tribunal order states: Compass Rentals Limited (as agent for Jillian Young) must pay James Daniel

How much money was awarded in case 5226594?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Removal Of Gas Bottle: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226594?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226594?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000006-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226594?

The tribunal order states: Compass Rentals Limited (as agent for Jillian Young) must pay James Daniel

How much money was awarded in case 5226594?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Removal Of Gas Bottle: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226594?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226594?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000006-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Jordan Street, Mangawhai Heads, Mangawhai 0505 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5226594 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5226594 — net $1,077.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$700.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Removal of gas bottle	$350.00	Removal of gas bottle
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	59. The tenant has been partially successful in this application and I will award the tenant the filing fee of $27.00.
Net award	$1,077.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,077.00

This is a fixed term tenancy that began on 17 September 2024 and is due to end on 13 September 2025. The parties entered into a written tenancy agreement on the standard Tenancy Services form. Compass Rentals Ltd (Ray White Compass Rentals) act as agents for the owner, Ms Young. Mr Smith is the sole named tenant in the tenancy agreement. Mr Smith lives at the property with his wife and young son.

This application was filed on 5 April 2025. The application sought an order releasing Mr & Mrs Smith from the tenancy.

At the hearing Mr Smith explained that this was the offer that he put to the landlord – to released from the tenancy on a specific date with neither party having any further obligations and no money changing hands – but if the landlord did not agree to that he also wanted to seek compensation and exemplary damages from the Tribunal.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 30 May 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Banks and Ms Rogers represented the landlord. Issues

Mr Smith provided a detailed written statement. The issues in the statement may be grouped as follows: a. Issues relating to Ms Young and to Ms Rogers’ role as agent (interference with peace, comfort, and privacy) b. Removal of a gas cylinder. c. Issues relating to water. d. Maintenance issues. Issues relating to Ms Young and to Ms Rogers

Mr Smith said that: a. Ms Young attempted to impose unreasonable requirements and standards in terms of the upkeep of the premises and the garden. b. Ms Young monitored them / the property and made inappropriate comments to the agents that were passed on to them. c. Ms Rogers was very sympathetic to their concerns and critical of the owner, including encouraging them to request release from the tenancy, but more recently Compass Rentals has defended the owner and has not assisted with their request to end the tenancy.

Mr Smith said that the landlord attempted to add additional clauses to the tenancy agreement after it was signed. The clauses included cleaning the glass door on the woodburner after every use, cleaning the exterior windows once every three months, and “trees to be maintained at height not more than 1m above fence height”.

Ms Banks and Ms Rogers said that these were not terms or clauses that the owner was attempting to add to the tenancy agreement, but general information about the property. The document is entitled “Information for 41 Jordan Street” and it includes information such as: “Under cupboard light turned on by swiping near sensor on left” and “Ensure fanlights closed when French door opened so wall not hit”. Ms Banks and Ms Rogers agreed that some of the instructions set out in the document are not legally enforceable.

Mr Smith said that Ms Young made comments about them having a birthday party for their one-year-old son, about their upkeep of the garden, and about their use of water. These comments were passed on to them by Compass Rentals, either verbally or in writing.

On 4 March 2025, Mr & Mrs Smith had a telephone conversation with Ms Rogers expressing their concerns about the owner’s expectations and comments. Mr Smith provided a transcript of that conversation at the hearing, which Ms Rogers accepted as accurate. In the phone call Ms Rogers supports Mr & Mrs Smith’s concerns about the owner, is critical of the owner, and encourages Mr & Mrs Smith to ask to be released from the tenancy.

Landlords (which includes agents and owners) 1 must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. 2 A breach of this duty can result in an award of compensation for loss of amenity. A breach of this duty in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant can result in an award of exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00. 3

At the hearing, Ms Banks provided some information about the owner’s circumstances.

Ms Young is not an experienced landlord and perhaps her anxiety about renting out her house caused her to “overstep” in terms of her requirements / expectations of the tenant and her oversight of the tenancy.

This is not unusual. One of the roles of a property manager is to act as a specialist between two non-specialists (owner and tenant), managing expectations with reference to tenancy law (which the property manager should have a sound understanding of), and communicating effectively.

Ms Rogers is new to the role and was in a difficult situation, wanting to please both the owner and the tenant. Unfortunately, this led to some errors in judgment. Some of Ms Young’s comments should not have been passed on to the tenant. Compass Rentals could, and should, have corrected some of Ms Young’s unreasonable expectations. 1 Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 38(2) RTA 3 Section 38(3) RTA

The consequence of these errors was that Mr & Mrs Smith felt judged and ill at ease in their home, and they felt entirely vindicated in their feelings after speaking with Ms Rogers on 4 March.

I am satisfied that: a. There was no intention to harass the tenant, and there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages. b. The landlord (collectively, both the owner and the property manager) did cause an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace comfort and privacy, and it is appropriate to award compensation.

Mr Smith said that the situation caused himself and his wife considerable stress, to the extent that they do not stay at the house most of the time and they want to exit the tenancy as soon as possible.

Mr Smith acknowledged that the issues stopped around the time that he filed this application.

Ms Banks said that although there were some errors and miscommunication up to March this year, the situation has been corrected, Ms Young has apologised for her actions, and the tenancy is now ‘back on track’.

Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment is difficult to quantify because the loss suffered by the tenant is intangible.

Without diminishing Mr & Mrs Smith’s subjective experience, from an objective perspective the interference with their peace comfort and privacy was at the low end of the scale. It does not justify termination of the tenancy, and it does not justify a substantial award of damages.

Balancing these considerations, I will award compensation of $700.00, which is the equivalent of one weeks’ rent. Removal of gas cylinder

At the beginning of the tenancy there were two large gas cylinders at the property. The property uses gas for hot water.

In early December, Mr Smith challenged the amount that he was being charged for gas. Mr Smith disputed the bottle supply / hire charge, which he (correctly) argued is a cost that should fall to the landlord and the tenant is only liable for the cost of the gas itself. 4

About one week after this, the gas supplier came and removed one of the gas bottles. 4 Section 39 RTA

Mr Smith said that the supplier tried to remove both bottles, but his wife, who was home at the time, objected to this and they left one behind. Mr Smith said that when he rang Ms Rogers about this Ms Rogers confirmed that the owner intended to remove both bottles and that she was angry that the gas supplier had failed to remove both.

At the hearing Ms Banks and Ms Rogers said that the owner only ever intended to remove one bottle. They provided a copy of an email from the owner to the gas supplier dated 16 December 2024 that supports this.

Mr Smith argued that the owner removed the gas bottle vindictively in response to him disputing the gas bottle hire cost.

It is an unlawful act for a landlord to interfere with the supply of services. 5 Exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 can apply.

This penalty is intended to punish and deter landlords who put pressure on tenants by removing or threatening to remove services to the property.

I acknowledge why Mr Smith considers that the landlord’s actions were of that type in this instance, given that it occurred a few days after he lawfully challenged the landlord’s attempts to charge him for the gas bottle hire, and given his view that the landlord attempted to remove both bottles.

However, having regard to the 16 December email, I am satisfied that the owner only ever intended to remove one bottle. The gas supplier’s attempt to remove two seems to have been a misunderstanding on their part.

I am also satisfied that the owner’s actions were not vindictive but were misconceived. When it became apparent that she had to pay for the hire cost, the owner decided that one gas bottle was enough for the tenant. It was an attempt to save cost.

This means that it is not appropriate to award exemplary damages, which are punitive, but it is appropriate to award compensation. The landlord had no legal right to remove the gas bottle. It was part of the premises that the tenant had the right to use.

The second gas bottle was reinstated by the property manager after several months.

Mr Smith said that it was inconvenient having only one bottle as they were concerned that they may run out of gas and then they would have no hot water until it was refilled.

Ms Banks said that the gas bottle has a gauge on it, so the tenant would know when it was getting low. 5 Section 45(2) and (2A) RTA

The actual impact on the tenant of removing one gas bottle was relatively minimal, but context is important. The owner’s action was unlawful and inappropriate. and it added yet more stress to Mr & Mrs Smith.

Having regard to these factors I will award compensation of $350.00. Water

The property is on tank water.

It was part of the agreement that the tenant would regularly water the garden, and the landlord agreed to provide 6,000l of water upon request.

Mr Smith said that: a. They were put under pressure to water the garden frequently. The owner raised concerns about dry areas in the garden during inspections. Ms Rogers passed on a comment from the owner that even if one plant was to die, they would be required to pay for it. b. Because of this pressure they restricted their own household use of water. c. When they raised concerns about water, they received critical / judgmental comments about their water use. d. They requested the 6000l top up, but it was not delivered until April. e. They began to experience bouts of sickness. They went away on holiday in early 2025 and did not have the same health problems when they were away. When they returned, the sickness returned. They were concerned that the water could be contaminated. They raised this with Compass Rentals in late February. Compass Rentals failed to respond to the concerns promptly.

Ms Banks and Ms Rogers said that: a. They passed on any water issues that Mr Smith raised to the owner. b. The water system has two filters and can supply potable water. c. Mr Smith was not required to compromise the household water supply to water the garden. d. The summer was hot and dry and many properties in Mangahwai ran out of water. e. Any comments about limiting / conserving water use were intended to be helpful not critical. f. The owner arranged for chemical treatment of the water in response to the tenant’s concerns about water quality / contamination.

Where the premises is not on a reticulated supply, the landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. 6 The system must be capable of supplying potable water. 7

In this instance: a. There is no evidence to indicate that the household water system (gutters, downpipes, tank, etc) is inadequate, although I will observe that a physical filtration system cannot eliminate biological (bacterial) contamination from water. Therefore, any household water system that does not have a UV- filter has an ongoing risk of contamination, but it is currently not a legal requirement to have a UV-filter. b. The landlord’s promise to supply additional water was a fair and reasonable compromise given the landlord’s requirement that the tenant water the garden and regularly replace the water in the spa pool. c. Landlords must provide an adequate system for water collection, but if water runs out notwithstanding the adequate system (for example, in drought conditions) the landlord is not obliged to pay for water to be delivered. d. Mr Smith suspects that his (and his wife’s) illness was due to contaminated water, and I accept that he has a reasonable basis for that suspicion. However, correlation is not causation and the only way of proving whether the water is contaminated is to have it tested. e. The landlord hesitated before acting on Mr Smith’s concerns about contamination, and I understand why this was frustrating and concerning for Mr Smith. However, at that time (and to this day) there was no evidence of contamination, only a suspicion.

It is not proven that the landlord breached a legal duty in respect of the water supply. Therefore, there is no basis for an award of damages under this heading. Maintenance

Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 8

Mr Smith raised the following issues under this heading: a. Letterbox: The letterbox blew over in a storm. It took approximately four weeks before it was reinstated. 6 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA 7 Section 123 Building Act 2004 8 Section 45(1)(b) RTA b. Driveway. The driveway is quite steep and has pebbles on it, which are (partially) contained in plastic tubes. The driveway requires upkeep because the pebbles tend to move around / wash out.

The landlord said that the letterbox had been previously damaged “by local vandals”, but it was relatively simple to knock back in. It seems that the landlord assumed that Mr Smith would do this himself. When Mr & Mrs Smith advised that they did not have the tools or the time, the owner reinstated the letterbox at a property inspection on 13 March.

Similarly, the landlord assumed that the tenant would carry out minor upkeep of the driveway such as raking pebbles.

These are both relatively minor maintenance issues. I am satisfied that the delays in carrying out the work were due to imperfect communication rather than any reluctance on the landlord to meet their duty to maintain the premises.

It is appropriate to emphasise that the landlord, not the tenant, is responsible for maintenance of the premises, but no award of compensation is warranted. Termination

The following breaches are proven: a. Interference with peace comfort and privacy. b. Removal of an amenity without consent (gas bottle).

The removal of the gas bottle was remedied.

The interference with peace comfort and privacy cannot be remedied, but the interference has ceased.

The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if the landlord or tenant breached a term of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act. 9 If a breach is proven, the Tribunal must consider whether the nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination. 10

My finding is that the proven breaches are relatively minor and they do not justify termination of the tenancy in this instance. The appropriate remedy for the breaches is compensation. Filing fee 9 Section 56 RTA 10 Section 56(1)(c) RTA

The tenant has been partially successful in this application and I will award the tenant the filing fee of $27.00. 11

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5226594 — net $1,077.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$700.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Removal of gas bottle	$350.00	Removal of gas bottle
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	59. The tenant has been partially successful in this application and I will award the tenant the filing fee of $27.00.
Net award	$1,077.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,077.00