What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5245394?

The tribunal order states: Iain Michael MacFarlane must pay Guardian Property Management Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5245394?

Compensation: $65.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245394?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11952833-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5245394?

The tribunal order states: Iain Michael MacFarlane must pay Guardian Property Management Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5245394?

Compensation: $65.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245394?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11952833-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Fernleigh Street, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245394 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245394. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation 10 April 2025	$65.00		Compensation 10 April 2025

Mr Holloway, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by a friend, who also gave evidence (Witness X).

The tenancy commenced on 13 April 2024 and was for a fixed term to end on 11 April 2025, after which it became periodic. On 30 April 2025, the landlord filed a claim for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant had failed to remedy 14-day notices issued for rent arrears, keeping a dog, and using the property for commercial purposes. The landlord also seeks termination for the tenant’s failing to allow property inspections without reasonable excuse, as well as compensation and exemplary damages.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Law – breach notices

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate (see s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy including: • the history of the tenancy, • whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings, • whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future, • whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed, • the conduct of the landlord, • the gravity of the breach, • whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

In each case the Tribunal must determine whether the tenant has breached the agreement or provisions of the Act, and whether the tenant has failed to remedy the breach within the specified time. Rent arrears.

On 30 March 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day breach notice to remedy rent arrears of $520.00, equivalent to one weeks rent. The rent summary provided with the application shows that at the time of issue the tenant was in rent arrears, that the breach notice was not remedied within the required time, and that the amount owing remained outstanding beyond that period.

However, the rent summary produced at the hearing shows that the rent arrears have since been cleared. The landlord states that early efforts to engage with the tenant to establish a payment plan were unsuccessful, but that the tenant eventually made a series of “random” payments clearing the arrears. Decision

Although there has been a breach, I am not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse termination. This has been the first notice issued for rent arrears, and the arrears have been fully paid. In this case, termination would be disproportionate. The dog

On 17 December 2024, the landlord issued the tenant a 14-day breach notice to remove a dog allegedly kept at the property, and to cease using the property for a commercial purpose, namely vehicle maintenance. The landlord claims that the breach notice remains unremedied.

The tenancy agreement allows the tenant to have a cat only.

During an inspection on 21 May 2024 the landlord took photographs of a dog bowl on the back lawn, two bowls with dry food in the carport near the back door, and a collection of empty bowls on a clothes dryer in the laundry. The landlord also claimed that during the inspection they could smell a dog.

During a visit to the property on 27 May 2024, they state they heard a dog barking inside the house.

During an inspection on 05 November 2024, they saw a dog in the back yard.

On 28 April 2024, they took photographs from across the street showing a dog standing and then sitting down in the carport. The photographs are not date stamped. The landlord has produced an unsigned witness statement confirming that the landlord took the photographs on that date. The witness also states that later on the dog made its way to the front porch. The landlord claims they sent the photograph to the tenant who responded abusively and said the dog did not belong to them.

The tenant accepts that on 27 May 2024 a friend’s dog had temporarily been left inside while he took the friend to a legal appointment, but otherwise denied keeping a dog at the property in breach of the agreement. The tenant stated that the food bowls shown in the photographs contained cat biscuits. The tenant as made a complaint to Tenancy Services compliance about the general condition of the property, who have visited the property and conducted an inspection. The report has not been shared with the landlord. The tenant states the photographs taken show that the property suffers from excessive moisture and mould which causes an unpleasant musty smell, likely the odour the landlord refers to.

The tenant states that several visitors had been present at the inspection on 05 November 2024, and that the dog seen belonged to one of those visitors. Witness X stated they had been at the address on 05 November 2024, and confirmed that the dog was not the tenant’s, adding that the landlord had been advised of this at the time.

The tenant stated that the dog shown in the photographs belonged to a neighbour and noted that the dog was standing in the driveway outside the gate to his back yard. Decision

The landlord state they smelt a dog whereas the tenant stated that the smell is likely attributable to the condition of the property.

On the evidence, I am not satisfied more likely than not that the tenant is keeping a dog at the property in breach of the terms of the agreement. The only photographs produced show a dog standing and then grooming itself outside the tenant’s gate to the back lawn area, which appears enclosed, and a black and white cat (permitted under the agreement). The food bowls located inside the tenant’s gate appear to contain cat biscuits. The claim is dismissed. Using the property for commercial purposes

The landlord produced photographs taken on 05 November 2024, 11 November 2024, 13 December 2024, and 30 May 2025. These show vehicles parked in the driveway, on the roadside, and on the front lawn. One of the photographs shows a stack of car tyres, another a vehicle which appears to have a missing front guard and grille. The landlord claims that, in the absence of any other explanation, the tenant is operating a mechanical services business from the property.

The tenant denies providing mechanical services. The tenant states that they personally own three of the vehicles shown in the photographs, and that the others belonged to visitors. The tenant added that there was a church nearby and that its parishioners often parked their vehicles on both sides of the road and directly outside his property. Decision

The onus is on the landlord to establish the claim. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant more likely than not has breached the terms of the agreement by using the property for commercial purposes. The claim is dismissed. Failing to allow inspections.

The landlord claims that having been given sufficient notice of property inspections on 10 December 2024, and 10 April 2025, the tenant, without reasonable excuse, failed to allow them to proceed.

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy.

The landlord states these breaches were incapable of remedy and that 14-day notices were not required.

The landlord is seeking compensation of $60.00 for the first failed inspection, which was their charge to the owner, and $65.00 for the failed inspection on 10 April 2025, which was the call out fee for the tradesperson who had accompanied them.

The landlord also seeks exemplary damages. Law

Section 48 (2) (b) of the Act states that a landlord may enter the property for the purposes of conducting an inspection with no less than 48 hours and no more than 14 days’ notice. Inspections must not be carried out, unless with the consent of the tenant, more than once in any four-week period.

Under 48(2)(d), the landlord must give at least 24 hours of enter to conduct any necessary repairs.

Under section 49(4)(a), a failure by the tenant to allow the landlord to enter the property without reasonable excuse, where entitled to do so, is an unlawful act. In addition to compensation for loss caused by the breach, the landlord may also be entitled to exemplary damages. Inspection 10 December 2024

On 03 December 2024, the landlord served the tenant a notice to conduct a property inspection on 10 December 2024 at midday. The notice was sent via text and to the tenant’s email address for service. The landlord states that on 04 December 2024, they received a call from the tenant advising that if they attended the property they would be trespassed.

On 09 December 2024, the landlord sent a reminder of their intention to conduct an inspection.

On 10 December 2024, the landlord arrived but states they were denied entry and verbally abused by the tenant who used foul language. There is no evidence of assault or threats to assault. The landlord made an online complaint to police. Later that day, the landlord states they received a call from a tenancy advocate acting for the tenant, who apologised for the tenant’s behaviour.

The landlord stated that they would not make a police complaint if it was not warranted. The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had physical health issues but also that they were generally unpredictable, erratic, suggesting they would benefit from some form of anger management counselling.

The tenant states that after receiving the notice, they called the landlord questioning the reasons for the inspection, noting that a full inspection had been conducted only 4 weeks prior. The tenant stated that the landlord assured them the visit was solely to inspect the fence and the deck. However, on 10 December 2024, upon arrival the landlord demanded entry into the house. The tenant questioned the landlord’s veracity stating that they “twisted things.” The tenant admitted becoming frustrated and asking the landlord to leave but denied using foul language. The tenant added that they are physically unwell and were undergoing a course of treatment that may affect cognitive function. They had engaged a tenancy advocate to assist navigate issues with the tenancy. They believe that the advocate called the landlord but questioned whether the purpose was to apologise on their behalf. Inspection 10 April 2025

The landlord states during an inspection on 21 January 2025, the tenant raised an issue concerning the window latches, which were subsequently addressed.

During an inspection on 07 April 2025, the tenant advised that the window latches had not been fixed properly. The landlord agreed, and on 08 April 2025 issued a notice advising of a return on 10 April 2025 to carry out repairs.

On 10 April 2025, the landlord arrived with the tradesperson, but states the tenant shouted and swore forcing them to leave. Again, the landlord made an online complaint to police. The landlord states that the police initially sought a full statement but later cancelled the request.

The landlord produced an email statement from the tradesperson who attended with the landlord on 10 April 2025, stating that “In light of what happened”, they would not be accepting any further work at the property.

In another email dated 10 May 2025, a different tradesperson thanked the landlord for their notification and expressed reservations about attending the property without support or unless accompanied by the landlord.

The landlord stated that, as a landlord, they had a health and safety duty to provide a safe working environment for tradespeople, and due to the tenant’s behaviour were obligated to accompany any tradesperson attending the property.

The tenant states during the inspection on 07 April 2025, they made it clear that while the tradesperson was welcome to return, the landlord was not. The tenant stated that the landlord appeared to agree to the request. When the landlord arrived on 10 April 2025, the tenant told him to leave but again denied using foul language.

The tenant challenged the second tradesperson’s statement, stating that it was based on what the landlord had told the tradesperson rather than personal experience. The tenant noted that they had never had issues with tradespeople, including the author of the statement, were unaware of any complaints, and usually got on well with them, pointing out that they shared a similar background.

The tenant expressed the view that the frequency of the inspections, multiple visits, and poor treatment by the landlord amounted to an interference with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, although they have not made a claim.

The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had made the request that they not return but denied agreeing to it. They referred to an email to the tenant sent shortly before the visit, confirming that they would be attending. Witness X

Witness X stated that they had been at the property on 04 December 2024 and had overheard the conversation between the tenant and the landlord via speaker phone. They stated that the landlord said that the inspection was to look at the fence, the deck, and the doors. Witness X believed the doors referred to were ones that could be inspected from outside and did not require entry into the house.

Witness X stated that the relationship between the landlord and tenant was strained, with the tenant believing that the landlord had failed to fulfil their obligations to maintain the property.

Witness X stated that they had also been present on 10 December 2024. They state that upon arrival, the landlord demanded entry into the property to conduct a full inspection. Witness X believed the tenant became upset about being misled. Although the tenant raised his voice and told the landlord to “get off the property,” they had not used foul language.

The landlord put to witness X that there had been two calls made on 04 December 2024, and that the tenant had hung up twice. Witness X could not recall this. The landlord also put to witness X that he had said “as part of the property inspection” he would also look at the fence, deck, and doors, and had not limited the scope of the inspection. Witness X stated that this was incorrect. He also put to witness X that the tenant told him to “fuck off.” Witness X confirmed they could not recall the tenant using foul language.

Witness X stated that they had also been at the inspection on 07 April 2025, and confirmed that the latches were discussed, but they gave no evidence concerning who was going to return to fix them. Decision

I will deal with the matter in the following manner: a. Has the tenant breached by failing to allow inspections, b. If so, consider the claim for compensation, c. Did the tenant have a reasonable excuse, d. Are exemplary damages justified, e. Would it be inequitable to terminate the tenancy, Breach

In both instances notices had been properly served.

Once valid notice is served, the landlord has the right to exercise their right of entry.

However, in exercising this right, the landlord must conduct themselves in a manner as to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant.

While a tenant is free to express an opinion, they cannot unilaterally dictate who will or will not conduct an inspection or accompany tradespeople.

I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to allow the inspections and has therefore breached the provisions of the Act. Compensation

A tenant who breaches the agreement or provisions of the Act is liable for loss that arises naturally from the breach or for loss reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of entering the agreement. I find the tenant liable for the tradesperson’s call out fee. However, I do not find the tenant liable for the landlord’s fee to the property owner, as this was not a foreseeable loss contemplated by the parties at the commencement of the tenancy. Reasonable excuse

The general test can be framed as what would a reasonable person have done in the same circumstances. This requires an objective assessment as to whether the tenant’s refusal was appropriate in the circumstances.

I accept the evidence of witness X who appeared forthright and candid.

Regarding the incident of 10 December 2024, while the original notice clearly refers to an “inspection” the subsequent phone call has in my view created a misunderstanding between the parties regarding the scope of the inspection. The landlord believed the inspection to be a full inspection that would also include the fence, deck, and doors. The tenant, however, understood that only those areas would be inspected. A similar misunderstanding occurred regarding the visit on 10 April 2025. The tenant believed that only the tradesperson would attend to repair the windows, the landlord maintains that no such undertaking was given.

While the tenant raised his voice, there is no evidence of any threats to assault. There is also insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the tenant used foul language.

The tenant suffers from a serious illness, the nature and treatment of which likely affects his cognitive functioning and behaviour.

Having considered the evidence I am satisfied, albeit by a narrow margin, that the tenant had a reasonable excuse for failing to allow the inspection.

Accordingly, there is no award for exemplary damages. Termination

Inspections were completed on 21 May 2024, 05 November 2024, 21 January 2025, and 07 April 2025.

It is clear that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated, with each expressing concerns about the other’s conduct.

A complaint made to police does not necessarily mean that the alleged incident occurred, or if it did, that it amounted to a criminal offence.

No breach notices have been issued for failing to allow inspections. I disagree with the landlord’s view that a tenant failing to allow an inspection is a breach incapable of remedy.

I do not consider that termination would be a proportionate response to the breach.

In the circumstances I do not find it inequitable to refuse termination. Costs

Under section 102 of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to award reimbursement of the filing fee to a party who has been partly successful. Although the landlord has been partly successful, no order is made. Name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Although the tenant has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245394. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation 10 April 2025	$65.00		Compensation 10 April 2025