What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229412?

The tribunal order states: Real Estate Mid Canterbury Property Management Limited as agent for Peter

How much money was awarded in case 5229412?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229412?

The primary dispute was Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229412?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12073057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229412?

The tribunal order states: Real Estate Mid Canterbury Property Management Limited as agent for Peter

How much money was awarded in case 5229412?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229412?

The primary dispute was Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229412?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12073057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106A Bowen Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229412 — Compensation

Order

Real Estate Mid Canterbury Property Management Limited as agent for Peter Taylor, and Peter Taylor must pay Julienne Moore $100.00 immediately, being compensation for the delay in providing a garage door opener.
The application for further compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone today. Ms Von Lubke represented the landlord. She confirmed that she was authorised to represent the owner who was aware of the hearing.
The tenancy started on 15 September 2019 and ended on 2 March 2025.
The tenant has no issues with Ms Von Lubke as her property manager. Her concerns are with the behaviour of the owner of the premises, Mr Taylor. The application
The tenant has claimed compensation for: •Breaches of her quiet enjoyment (4) by the landlord arriving at the premises unannounced •Being without a garage door remote control for a period of 4 months •Costs incurred erecting a shelter/structure which the tenant says the landlord consented to •Storage costs because she could not quickly find premises to move to after her tenancy was terminated. Relevant law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Sections 40 and 45 RTA set out the responsibilities of tenants and landlords. Compensation – legal principles
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion
A landlord (the definition of which includes the owner) must provide notice of inspections and may not enter the premises without proper notice.
Here, the owner did not undertake inspections. He turned up on 4 occasions either unannounced or at times when the tenant had advised she would not be there.
If the owner continued with a pattern of that behaviour, the Tribunal would find it a breach of quiet enjoyment, even though a landlord may access the exterior of the premises without notice.
Here, there were 4 incidents when the landlord arrived unannounced. Over a tenancy of more than 5 years, that is not considered excessive, nor an objective breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. No compensation is awarded for that.
The tenant was provided with 2 garage door remote controls at the start of the tenancy. One did not work, and she returned it to her property manager. The other worked for a time then ‘fell apart’.
Ms Von Lubke accepted that there as a delay in replacing it. The tenant said it took 4 months. During that time, she was inconvenienced as she often arrived home late at night. The tenant denied the owner’s assertion that she lost one of the controls.
I accept that this was an inconvenience. The landlord should have replaced it quickly.
For this breach, I award the tenant compensation of $100.00.
The tenant gave evidence that the landlord gave approval for her to erect a shelter/structure with the caveat that she did not drill into brickwork. She went ahead, purchased the materials, and with the assistance of her boarder (who has provided a written statement) built the structure.
The owner in his written response denies that approval was given. He instructed the property manager to issue a breach notice requiring the removal of the structure.
Nothing about this arrangement was recorded in writing. The tenancy agreement prevented any alterations to the premises.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding between the parties. Regardless, I cannot award compensation as the tenant seeks.
Without clear evidence such as a written confirmation of what was agreed, the Tribunal cannot find that the owner gave formal approval for the structure to be built. Ms Von Lubke said the arrangement, if there was one, did not involve her.
Also, the tenant took the structure with her when she vacated. She is attempting to sell it. She might yet recoup her costs of $282.75.
The Tribunal must dismiss this claim as well as the associated claim for travel costs of $150.00.
The tenant sought storage costs for her chattels following the termination of the tenancy. She said the notice to terminate came at a difficult time of year (the holiday period) and a time when she had already arranged a 2-week holiday.
The landlord’s notice to terminate was properly given. A date error was quickly corrected. The landlord had the statutory right to end the tenancy.
Tenants often face an uncertain future and additional costs when a tenancy is terminated. But in the absence of a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities, the Tribunal cannot award compensation for the costs involved in moving to new premises.
Nor (generally) can the Tribunal award compensation for the stress and emotional hurt arising from the termination of the tenancy or what the tenant considers to be poor behaviour by the owner.
This case illustrates what can occur when owners insist on managing some aspects of the tenancy while at the same time having a property manager. Both the tenant and the owner should have dealt with the property manager for the matters that are at issue here. Left to do their job, without interference, it is doubtful that the confusion that has arisen here would have occurred. Result
Other than compensation of $100.00 for the delay in replacing the garage door remote control, I dismiss the tenant’s application. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as the application is mostly unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Order

Real Estate Mid Canterbury Property Management Limited as agent for Peter Taylor, and Peter Taylor must pay Julienne Moore $100.00 immediately, being compensation for the delay in providing a garage door opener.
The application for further compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone today. Ms Von Lubke represented the landlord. She confirmed that she was authorised to represent the owner who was aware of the hearing.
The tenancy started on 15 September 2019 and ended on 2 March 2025.
The tenant has no issues with Ms Von Lubke as her property manager. Her concerns are with the behaviour of the owner of the premises, Mr Taylor. The application
The tenant has claimed compensation for: •Breaches of her quiet enjoyment (4) by the landlord arriving at the premises unannounced •Being without a garage door remote control for a period of 4 months •Costs incurred erecting a shelter/structure which the tenant says the landlord consented to •Storage costs because she could not quickly find premises to move to after her tenancy was terminated. Relevant law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Sections 40 and 45 RTA set out the responsibilities of tenants and landlords. Compensation – legal principles
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion
A landlord (the definition of which includes the owner) must provide notice of inspections and may not enter the premises without proper notice.
Here, the owner did not undertake inspections. He turned up on 4 occasions either unannounced or at times when the tenant had advised she would not be there.
If the owner continued with a pattern of that behaviour, the Tribunal would find it a breach of quiet enjoyment, even though a landlord may access the exterior of the premises without notice.
Here, there were 4 incidents when the landlord arrived unannounced. Over a tenancy of more than 5 years, that is not considered excessive, nor an objective breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. No compensation is awarded for that.
The tenant was provided with 2 garage door remote controls at the start of the tenancy. One did not work, and she returned it to her property manager. The other worked for a time then ‘fell apart’.
Ms Von Lubke accepted that there as a delay in replacing it. The tenant said it took 4 months. During that time, she was inconvenienced as she often arrived home late at night. The tenant denied the owner’s assertion that she lost one of the controls.
I accept that this was an inconvenience. The landlord should have replaced it quickly.
For this breach, I award the tenant compensation of $100.00.
The tenant gave evidence that the landlord gave approval for her to erect a shelter/structure with the caveat that she did not drill into brickwork. She went ahead, purchased the materials, and with the assistance of her boarder (who has provided a written statement) built the structure.
The owner in his written response denies that approval was given. He instructed the property manager to issue a breach notice requiring the removal of the structure.
Nothing about this arrangement was recorded in writing. The tenancy agreement prevented any alterations to the premises.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding between the parties. Regardless, I cannot award compensation as the tenant seeks.
Without clear evidence such as a written confirmation of what was agreed, the Tribunal cannot find that the owner gave formal approval for the structure to be built. Ms Von Lubke said the arrangement, if there was one, did not involve her.
Also, the tenant took the structure with her when she vacated. She is attempting to sell it. She might yet recoup her costs of $282.75.
The Tribunal must dismiss this claim as well as the associated claim for travel costs of $150.00.
The tenant sought storage costs for her chattels following the termination of the tenancy. She said the notice to terminate came at a difficult time of year (the holiday period) and a time when she had already arranged a 2-week holiday.
The landlord’s notice to terminate was properly given. A date error was quickly corrected. The landlord had the statutory right to end the tenancy.
Tenants often face an uncertain future and additional costs when a tenancy is terminated. But in the absence of a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities, the Tribunal cannot award compensation for the costs involved in moving to new premises.
Nor (generally) can the Tribunal award compensation for the stress and emotional hurt arising from the termination of the tenancy or what the tenant considers to be poor behaviour by the owner.
This case illustrates what can occur when owners insist on managing some aspects of the tenancy while at the same time having a property manager. Both the tenant and the owner should have dealt with the property manager for the matters that are at issue here. Left to do their job, without interference, it is doubtful that the confusion that has arisen here would have occurred. Result
Other than compensation of $100.00 for the delay in replacing the garage door remote control, I dismiss the tenant’s application. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as the application is mostly unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229412 — Compensation at 106A Bowen Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229412 — Compensation at 106A Bowen Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions