What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5277239?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi and Kyuwon Shim at 15A Blenheim

How much money was awarded in case 5277239?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277239?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277239?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12095671-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5277239?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi and Kyuwon Shim at 15A Blenheim

How much money was awarded in case 5277239?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277239?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277239?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12095671-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15A Blenheim Street, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277239 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy of Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi and Kyuwon Shim at 15A Blenheim Street, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 is terminated, and possession is granted to Wiki Property Management Limited As Agent For Dan Yan Zhou, at 11:59pm on Wednesday 9 July 2025.
Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi and Kyuwon Shim must pay Wiki Property Management Limited As Agent For Dan Yan Zhou $5,782.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 () to Wiki Property Management Limited As Agent For Dan Yan Zhou immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Haam attended via video on behalf of the three tenants. He stated that Kyuwon Shim Gaeun Choi.
On 29 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy under application 5257599, for rent arrears of $4,750.00 and the filing fee of $27.00. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The amount still owing from this order is $4,777.00.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants made a cross application for termination of the tenancy for the tenants being induced by misrepresentation to enter into the tenancy agreement, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Background
The tenancy agreement lists three tenants that are jointly and severally liable for rent payments and any damages to the property. Mr Jamie Haam (also known as Mr Jamie Hamm), Mr Kyuwon Shim and Mr Gaeun Choi.
Mr Haam stated that Mr Shim moved out more than 3 months ago and Mr Choi moved out more than 2 months ago. He stated that he had made a request to have these tenants removed from the tenancy agreement and he says the landlord refused to do so. As such, all three tenants remain liable for any debt owed to the landlord.
I was not provided with proof Kyuwon Shim and/or Gaeun Choi ever sought the written agreement of both the landlord and the remaining tenants to be removed from the tenancy agreement nor was I provided with a signed variation to the tenancy agreement, amending the existing agreement.
Mr Haam says the landlord refused to remove the other tenants from the tenancy Agreement and told him the tenants would have to apply to the Tribunal to have their names removed. No such application was made. I note landlords are not obligated to agree to a tenant's request to be removed from a tenancy agreement. However, they must have valid reasons to refuse, such as the remaining tenants not meeting the criteria for a new tenancy or not having the ability to pay all the rent without the other tenant(s). Because these tenants have not had their names removed from the tenancy agreement, they remain liable for rent payments and any damages to the property.
Mr Hamm confirmed to me that the other two tenants are aware of the hearing today and chose not to attend. He stated that Kyuwon Shim is in Korea and Gaeun Choi was at work.
The landlord says it did not want to remove the other tenants from the tenancy agreement as Mr Hamm had ceased paying rent after these tenants moved out, had provided false confirmation of proof of employer and ability to meet rent payments and had provided false proof of rent payment around Easter Friday 2025. The owners wanted to retain the added security of being able to pursue all three tenants for rent arrears and any other tenant debt.
The Mr Haam confirmed he had provided the landlord with an alias surname (Haam instead of Hamm) and false proof of income on the tenancy application to mislead it. The landlord confirmed it had contacted Mr Haam’s alleged employer when he got behind with rent payments and the alleged employer said he knows Mr Haam but has never employed him. He also confirmed Mr Haam’s real surname is Hamm.
Mr Haam stated that although he did provide false and misleading information to the landlord, he did not produce a false proof of payment screenshot on Good Friday, not a payment the landlord proved it never received and that he made the payment on Easter Monday after the initial payment was returned to him by the bank.
The evidence shows that Mr Haam had a propensity towards misleading the landlord and not being truthful in the information he provided to it. I am unclear whether the screen shot for the alleged Good Friday payment was false or whether the tenant made an error in how he paid it and therefore the payment was returned to him and had to be transacted again. The evidence is clear the tenant gave the landlord a false surname and false proof of employer and income information in order to secure a tenancy he would have been unlikely to get otherwise.
The landlord also provided a Tenancy Tribunal Order dated 18 March 2025 between Mr Haam and List Seven Investments Limited, where Mr Haam was evicted on Thursday 20 March 2025 for non-payment of rent for at least 21 days at the date of the application, as well as non-payment of water rates. Mr Haam’s fixed term tenancy with his current landlord commenced on 25 March 2025, 3 days later. His current tenancy has been characterised by the same types of tenancy agreement and RTA breaches as his last tenancy was. He is therefore proven to be recidivist in these types of breaches of his obligations as a tenant. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay their rent in full and on time from 29 April 2025 and continuing to not pay any rent from 29 May 2025 when Adjudicator Brennan had made it clear to the tenant during the hearing of application 5257599 that the tenants could make a cross application if they had claims against the landlord that they considered may be an equitable offset to the rent arrears owed but they must rec-commence paying rent from the date of the 29 May 2025 Order and must pay the previous rent arrears.
The landlord served two 14-day notice on the tenants on 30 April 2025 and 30 May 2025, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the property manager has proven the owner of the premise is at risk of losing the property because of the tenants ongoing breaches. She has been unable to pay the mortgage for such a lengthy period without the rental income she should have received under this fixed term tenancy.
The tenancy is ended from 11:59pm on Wednesday 9 July 2025.
Section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016, states that the landlord cannot enforce this eviction order for 48 hours and is unlikely to be able to take possession of the premise until Monday 14 July 2025. This gives the tenant time to move any belongings out of the premise that he wants to retain. The tenant will need to have his belongings out of the premise, the premise reasonably clean and tidy and the keys returned to the property manager by 9am on Monday 14 July 2025.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy has been terminated and possession granted back to the landlord The landlord provided rent records to 9 July 2025 and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing to 2 May 2025.
The landlord can bring a further application to the Tribunal for rent and water rates arrears owing to the end of the tenancy.
The tenants signed up to a fixed term tenancy from 25 March 2025 to 24 March 2026. Tenants remain liable for rent under a fixed term agreement until the end of the fixed term or the date a new tenant moves into the premise, whichever is the earlier date. For the avoidance of doubt, the tenants remain liable for payment of rent from 10 July 2025 to 24 March 2026 or the date a new tenant to move into the premise.
In addition, the tenants will remain liable for the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord for the administration and advertising costs associated with them breaking the fixed term lease early.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach her s13A(1) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?

The tenants claim the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement recorded the premise was four bedrooms and seeks compensation for its failure to record how many bedrooms the premise contained. This became important to the tenants claim that they had been induced by the landlord’s misrepresentation that the premise contained four bedrooms and that the tenancy agreement did not accord with their true agreement to rent a four-bedroom premise. Instead, they say they found that they had rented a three-bedroom house with a small study that did not meet the legal requirements to be considered a small fourth bedroom.
Section 13A(1) of the RTA sets out all the information that must statutorily be required to be included in a written tenancy agreement. The number of bedrooms in the premise being rented is not one of these statutory requirements. The tenants’ claim is dismissed. Were the tenants induced into signing a tenancy agreement based on the landlord’s misrepresentation in breach of s78(1)(g) of the RTA-
The tenants seek orders for reduction of the fixed term tenancy to four weeks from today, reimbursement of all rent paid and any rent owing until new tenants move into the premise because the tenants say the landlord induced into signing a tenancy agreement based on the landlord’s misrepresentation that the premise had four legal bedrooms when one bedroom did not meet the size requirements to be considered a legal bedroom.
The tenants claim the landlord advertised this premise as a four-bedroom house, but the house is actually a three-bedroom house because the fourth room is too small to be called as bedroom. The tenants rightfully state that in New Zealand to be called a bedroom the room needs to be a minimum length of 1.8 metres and have an area of 6 square metres. The tenants have stated the fourth room is only 1.6m and less than 6m2 in area, therefore they could not fit a bed and desk in it. Further, they say that when they viewed the property they asked if that bedroom would fit a bed and desk in and were told it would and they say they signed the tenancy agreement on that representation that they would be able to use this as a fourth bedroom and office. Additionally, they stated that but for this misrepresentation they would never had agreed to rent the remise at $950.00 when the other units were being rented at $900.00 per week.
Section 78(1)(g) of the RTA provides: “Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction (but subject to section 78A, if that section applies), make 1 or more of the following orders (g) where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part).
The tenants are asking me to set aside the tenancy agreement and refund them all the rent they have paid.
The tenants were unable to produce any evidence that proved the landlord advertised the premise as a four-bedroom house. The landlord denies doing this and says it was clear that the room could be used as a study and that this unit was the only one that had this additional room and the small outside area of lawn and would soon have an additional carpark, which is why the weekly rent was slightly higher.
It is of note the tenants produced a document that clearly states “resource consent BC10358920 is for 6 terraced houses, each with 3 bedrooms at 15 Blenheim Street, Glenfield.
The landlord also says she never advertised this unit as it was not complete when the tenants came to view Unit B and they had insisted on seeing it and agreed to move into it before it was complete as they wanted the study and extra lawn and car parking space and were prepared to put up with any inconvenience caused by the premise not yet having been fully completed.
The tenants also confirmed they had viewed the property before signing up to the 12-month fixed term tenancy. They could have measured the fourth room before doing so if it was so important to them and did not. There is no evidence to support the claim that the landlord misrepresented the premise to the tenants to induce them to enter into the tenancy agreement that they say they would not have signed up to but for the landlord’s representation they could fit a bed and desk in that fourth room, and that it met the size standard to be lawfully considered a fourth bedroom.
I find that the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities and dismiss the claim accordingly. Did the landlord breach its section 45(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the RTA obligations?
Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi and Kyuwon Shim claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(a),(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under s45(1)(a) of the RTA, the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under s45(1)(c) of the RTA a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenants say the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Specifically, the tenants produced photographic evidence that proves the landlord did not present the side lawn in a reasonably tidy condition. There were areas around the corners of the side lawn that the photographs show we missed by the lawn mowing contractor.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 7 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25]. 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26].
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11 , not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The tenant says he first raised this issue with the landlord at the end of April/ early May 2025 and issued a 14-day notice to remedy on 30 May 2025. He says the landlord never addressed this issue. Further, he says he never mowed the lawns after he moved in because of this breach of the landlord’s obligations at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed it never asked the contractor to come back and mow these parts of the lawn as this was to long from when lawn was first mowed before the tenancy commenced on 25 March 2025 and if the tenants had raised it straight away it could have asked the contractor to redo that part of the lawn. The landlord says the owner came and trimmed the edges with scissors on an undefined date but had no proof of that.
The tenants produced sufficient evidence to prove the lawn was not in a reasonable state of tidiness when they moved in, and no rent rebate or compensation was provided.
I am satisfied that the landlord knew it had to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and had neglected to ensure lawn met the require standard.
The parties agreed that it was around 5% of the lawn that was missed, being a few edges not trimmed. The landlord paid $60.00 for the lawn to be mowed. I award the tenant $3.00 compensation for the inconvenience of having to trim 5% of the lawn himself.
I do not find the breach to be intentional. Had the tenant brought the breach to its attention at the start of the tenancy, the landlord could have asked its contractor to come back and finish the job properly but was denied that opportunity. The time it was brough to the landlord’s attention, the tenants were in breach of their obligations to mow the lawn, so the landlord was unable to ascertain what it was responsible for trimming as the entire lawn was overgrown. Therefore, it is not appropriate to award any exemplary damages for this breach. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi and Kyuwon Shim say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Carpark
The parties say that when the tenants moved into this premise, they knew it was not finished but they were desperate for a place to live, as Mr Haam had just been evicted from his last tenancy for rent and water rates arrears, they were told they would have access to an additional carpark space from when resource consent was granted for the six unit development. The landlord says they offered the tenancy, and the tenants accepted it on the condition this car parking space would not be immediately available and may take time to complete.
The landlord confirmed it created the carpark before resource consent had been issued as the tenants were using this as an excuse to withhold payment of rent for significant periods of time. At the end of the tenancy, the extra carpark space had been created, was usable, but had not been fully completed.
The tenants produced photographs that proved there were gaps between the paver that required more stones to even the area out.
The tenants seeks orders for one weeks lost wages of $2,500.00 because of Mr Haam’s ankle sprain from the unfinished carpark space.
In New Zealand, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) scheme generally bars individuals from suing for personal injuries covered by the scheme, meaning they cannot take legal action against those responsible for their injuries in a Tribunal or court. This "no-fault" system provides financial and medical support to those injured in accidents, regardless of who was at fault. Refer to s317(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
In addition, I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven that they should not estopped from making this claim because the landlord has proven the tenants agreed to this condition when they took on the tenancy and are now seeking to enrich themselves by making a claim for compensation for an injury that occurred because of walking on the unfinished car parking area. I do not find that this was a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premise in a reasonable condition in all the circumstances. Curtains
The parties say that when the tenants moved into this premise the landlord stated it would install curtains in the remaining bedroom and dining room and then failed to do as promised.
The landlord stated that the owner could not afford to install blinds in these two rooms due to the tenants’ non-payment of rent. It also confirmed that it told the tenants if they paid the rent arrears the owner would get the binds installed.
In New Zealand, a landlord is not legally required to provide curtains or blinds for a rental property. However, landlords are expected to ensure the property meets basic habitability standards, which may include having some form of window covering for insulation and energy efficiency, privacy and light control.
It is well established that curtains/blinds help reduce heat loss during winter and block excessive sunlight during summer, making a property more energy- efficient. They can reduce heating costs for tenants, which is a significant concern for tenants, especially in colder months when the price of electricity is so high.
Providing curtains also ensures that tenants have the privacy they need, which is a basic expectation for any home. A lack of privacy may deter prospective tenants from renting the property.
Heavy, thermal-backed curtains can also help reduce condensation and moisture buildup on windows, which is a common issue in New Zealand homes. This can prevent mould and dampness, contributing to a healthier living environment.
I find that curtains/blinds are a basic amenity these tenants were denied. I am satisfied that the landlord intended to install these blinds/curtains and then refused to install these curtains/blinds because of the tenant’s breach of their obligation to pay rent and utility consumption charges when they fell due.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period he lived with the loss of amenity of these fittings. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 29 April 2025 to 9 July 2025 (10 weeks and 1 day) being a rent rebate of $304.28 ordered.
I do not find that this breach was intentional and do not consider an award of exemplary damages justified in all the circumstances. The breach was a result of the financial duress the owners were placed under because of the tenants significant and ongoing rent arrears breach. Did the landlord breach of landlord obligation to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises?
Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi and Kyuwon Shim claim the landlord was in breach of s45(1)(c) of the RTA because it was in breach of regulation 8 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
Regulation 8 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provides that: (1) Every bedroom shall have a minimum width of 1.8 m: provided that for the purpose of computing such width in a room with a sloping ceiling no regard shall be had to any part of the room the height of which from finished floor to finished ceiling is less than 1.5 m. (2) Every bedroom shall have an area of not less than 6 sq m: provided that in an existing house a room with an area of less than 6 sq m but not less than 4.5 sq m may be occupied as a bedroom by a person under 10 years of age. (3) In computing the area of a bedroom for the purposes of subclause (2) no regard shall be had to any portion of the bedroom the height of which from finished floor to finished ceiling is less than 1.5 m.
The tenants say the landlord advertised this premise as a four-bedroom house, and the fourth room is too small to be called as bedroom as only 1.6m and less than 6m2 in area.
As outlined in paragraphs [38] to [46] above, the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the fourth room was rented to them as a fourth bedroom. Therefore, the tenants claim that the landlord breached its regulation 8 and s45(1)(c) of the RTA obligations must also fail. The tenants claim for these breaches are dismissed accordingly. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi and Kyuwon Shim claims the landlord has harassed them.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.
Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenants claimed the property manager called Mr Haam multiple times at night, weekends and on holidays and demonstrated a complete disregard to his right to quiet enjoyment of the premise.
The landlord denies doing so and the tenant had not provided any evidence to support his claim, such as a call log.
The tenants also claim that once the property manager “screams at them, uses offensive language and verbal abuse in phone calls” and demonstrates an unprofessional attitude that made them very uncomfortable.
I find that the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove their two claims on the balance of probabilities and dismiss these claims accordingly. Moving costs
The tenant seeks orders for moving costs of $5,300.00 that he has not yet incurred based on a four week notice period.
I do not reach any finding on this claim and have declined this claim for the reason that the tenant has not identified what any such legal obligation arises from for which I could make any order.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenant has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I do not have any jurisdiction to make any orders for moving costs that have not yet been incurred by the tenant, this claim must be dismissed. Stress
The tenant seeks orders for compensation of $8,000.00 for stress caused by the landlord.
I do not reach any finding on this claim and have declined this claim for the reason that the tenant has not identified what any such legal obligation arises from for which I could make any order.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenant has identified, from which this claim can be based. Stress is a factor that the Tribunal can consider when looking at the basis for awards of compensation for loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience in relation to breaches of s45(1) of the RTA claims. I have the considered the tenants stress claim under that the failure to maintain head of claim above.
Because I do not have any jurisdiction to make any orders for stress as its own head of claim, this claim must be dismissed.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fee.

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Jamie Haam, Gaeun Choi, Kyuwon Shim have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claim their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.
Because Wiki Property Management Limited As Agent For Dan Yan Zhou has substantially succeeded with its claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in their proceedings.
Given the recidivist nature of Mr Haam’s breaches of his obligations to pay his rent and water rates consumption and wastewater charges in full and on time, I consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenants conduct. Any negative repercussions on the tenants from the publication of their names and identifying details is outweighed by future landlord’s being made aware that Mr Haam (also known as Mr Hamm) is unlikely to pay his rent and outgoings in full and on time. The other two tenants have not placed any evidence before the Tribunal that justifies me suppressing their names. For these reasons, I dismiss the tenants’ application for non-publication of their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277239 — Rent arrears at 15A Blenheim Street, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277239 — Rent arrears at 15A Blenheim Street, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

OTHER CLAIMS

Property management

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

OTHER CLAIMS

Property management