What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5291179?

The tribunal order states: Colleen Inez White must pay Emily Mercer $27.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5291179?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $840.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291179?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151208-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5291179?

The tribunal order states: Colleen Inez White must pay Emily Mercer $27.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5291179?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $840.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291179?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151208-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4B Wadeley Road, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291179 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291179 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 April 2025	$840.00	Rent arrears to 28 April 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291179 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 April 2025	$840.00	Rent arrears to 28 April 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

Colleen Inez White must pay Emily Mercer $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $840.00 (BN-00053077) to Emily Mercer immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant, Ms White, had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 3 March 2025. Rent was agreed at $420 per week and a bond of $840 was paid. The tenancy ended on 28 April 2025 and Ms White applied for compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord, Ms Mercer, cross applied for rent arrears. Ms White accepts the amount of rent claimed.
Ms White claims that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean condition and not provided in a reasonable state of repair, in particular: • The previous tenants had left rubbish in the garage and two boxes of seashells in the gardens; • The cover for the fan in the oven was missing, the oven handle was loose, and there was dirt underneath one of the elements; • The window catches in the bathroom and laundry required repair; • There was a gap in the bathroom window; • The clothesline required replacement (was ‘wobbly’); • The laundry tap had a leak; • One of the lounge curtains would not pull and the blinds were old and did not work; • The bathroom towel rail was attached by glue; • The smoke alarm in the hall did not work; • The floor behind the toilet was ‘rotten’. Maintenance and rubbish issues
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Once the landlord becomes aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner. What is a reasonable state of repair is to be assessed objectively having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Ms White began moving possessions into the property on Sunday 2 March, the day before the tenancy commenced. She moved in fully when her furniture arrived on Tuesday 4 March.
While at the premises on 2 March, Ms White took a video of the premises showing dirt/food under one of the stove elements, a lounge curtain not being able to be pulled, and the broken laundry window catch. She emailed the video to Ms Mercer that day outlining her concerns in the email. Ms Mercer replied soon after saying that she would: arrange for a new clothesline; contact her builder to repair the windows; arrange for the rubbish to be removed; and for a new oven to be installed.
Most of the rubbish was removed that day (2 March) with the remaining removed the following day. On 6 March a new oven was delivered and installed. A new clothesline was delivered and installed on 7 March.
On Monday 3 March Ms White told Ms Mercer of the leak from a tap in the laundry. Ms Mercer arranged for a plumber to attend and the washer in the tap was replaced on 3 March. The plumber had apparently noticed that the toilet cistern was loose, and this was repaired on Friday 7 March (a new cistern was installed).
On 20 March, Ms Mercer’s builder repaired the window latches, the bathroom window, and installed a new towel rail (Ms White said this was the earliest she could get the builder to attend to the issues).
Ms Mercer denied that the smoke alarm was not working. She said that she had tested it on 1 March when she completed an inspection of the premises, and it was working then. She said that Ms White wanted four smoke alarms installed and these were installed for her on 6 March.
Ms White wanted to use her own curtains in the lounge but the existing curtain tracks which had a pull cord were not suitable for the curtains she had. Ms White therefore requested new tracks and these were installed on Thursday 6 March.
On Monday 10 March, Ms White asked for new curtains and blinds. Ms Mercer said that she had told Ms White before the tenancy commenced that she intended to replace the curtains and blinds in June and Ms White was happy with that. However, when Ms White asked for new ones, she arranged for Millers to provide a quote and new blinds and curtains were scheduled to be installed on 10 April (the installation was cancelled when Ms White gave notice that she was moving out on 28 April).
On 19 March, Ms White emailed Ms Mercer with her concerns regarding the floorboards behind the toilet in the bathroom. Ms Mercer’s builder confirmed that the boards were rotten and required replacement. Two options were given to Ms Mercer: to replace the boards (this would be done in a day); or to renovate the bathroom. The latter option would take approximately three days plus another two days for plastering and painting. Ms White expressed her preference for the second option and Ms Mercer offered her a rent reduction to $300.00 while the work was to be carried out. However, on 8 April Ms White gave notice to end the tenancy and the work was not completed during her tenancy.
It is clear that Ms Mercer was very proactive in addressing Ms White’s maintenance and repair concerns once notified of these. However, essentially Ms White claims that all of these issues should have been remedied before the tenancy commenced and her right to quite enjoyment of the premises has been interfered with by having to put up with contractors and the landlord coming to the premises to address the issues when she had only just moved in.
The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act.
Where the breach of the tenants’ right in section 38(2) is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded: sections 38(3) and 109(4) of the Act. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I accept that Ms White did experience inconvenience in having most of the maintenance and repair issues attended to in the first week of her tenancy. However, I also accept Ms Mercer’s evidence that she was unaware of the maintenance and repair issues before the tenancy commenced. It is also not unusual for minor maintenance or repair issues to arise at the start of a tenancy, particularly in a tenancy of premises that are becoming dated and, as Ms Mercer accepts, getting ‘tired’. However, the rent charged for the tenancy reflects this. Ms Mercer provided evidence that establishes that the likely market value for the premises is between $540 and $580 per week.
I am therefore not satisfied that Ms White has established that Ms Mercer is in breach of any obligation regarding repairs and maintenance, or in breach of the healthy homes standards. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the smoke alarm was not working as claimed or in any other way in breach of the requirements regarding smoke alarms. I am also not satisfied that Ms Mercer has interfered with Ms Whites’ right to quiet enjoyment with respect to the repairs.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Cleaning
Section 45(1)(a) of the Act provides that the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Ms White claims that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition, including food/dirt under one of the stove elements, dirty windowsills and shelving, dirty handles and dirty switch/plug for the stove. Ms Whites’ witness, Ms Jessica White, gave evidence in support.
Ms Mercer disputes that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition. She said that premises, including the carpets, were professionally cleaned at the end of the previous tenancy. She said that she did not lift the stove elements so did not notice the dirt under one of the elements and she did not notice the other issues complained of by Ms White.
The obligation on a landlord is to provide the premises overall in a reasonably clean condition. It is not an absolute standard and there will be times when it is not up to a standard that some tenants may like for themselves. I accept that there may have been some areas that required further cleaning (in particular the bedroom windowsill and the oven plug), but I am satisfied that the premises were provided in a reasonably clean standard overall. I put little weight on the evidence of Ms Jessica White. She is Ms White’s daughter and therefore is not a fully objective witness. In addition, some of her evidence conflicted with Ms Whites’ evidence. ‘
Moreover, Ms White did not advise Ms Mercer of her concerns regarding the cleaning until 5 March and then she only mentioned dirt from a windowsill. Ms Mercer offered to come and discuss the issues but Ms White did not agree to a meeting until 13 March. She therefore did not give Ms Mercer the opportunity to arrange to have the cleaning issues addressed if that was considered necessary.
The claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for cleaning is therefore dismissed. Intimidation/harassment
Ms White claims that on 13 March, Ms Mercer intimidated or harassed her when she told Ms White that she seemed unhappy living at the property and she would accept her giving notice to end the tenancy if she wanted to move on.
I do not consider that this constitutes intimidation or harassment or anything close to it. It was clear that Ms White was unhappy with the premises and Ms Mercer was simply recognising this and giving her an option if she wished to exercise it.
This claim is therefore also dismissed. Heathy Homes Statement
A Healthy Homes Compliance statement is required to be completed and signed by the landlord and included with the tenancy agreement. Failure to comply is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable.
There was no dispute that Ms Mercer did not attach the statement with the tenancy agreement. It was emailed to Ms White some 11 days later.
The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. This requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages because I am not satisfied that the threshold requirement of intention is satisfied here.
I accept Ms Mercer’s evidence that she did not realise that she was required to attach the statement with the tenancy agreement. I am therefore satisfied that it was a genuine oversight rather than an intentional deliberate failure to do so. I also consider that there is no prejudice to Ms White by the failure to do so. I accept Ms Mercer’s evidence that she went through he completed signed statement with Ms White when the tenancy agreement was signed.
This claim is therefore also dismissed. Tribunal application fee
Ms Mercer has been successful I her claim and I therefore award her payment of the Tribunal application fee: section 102 of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291179 — Rent arrears at 4B Wadeley Road, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291179 — Rent arrears at 4B Wadeley Road, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions