What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296879?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5296879?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296879?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12320172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296879?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5296879?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296879?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12320172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16A Oderings Place, Huntington, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296879 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00104409) to Kate Bishop immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought a rent refund for the term of the tenancy, compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenancy was a fixed term, originally for a 6 month period, from 20 June 2025 to 20 December 2025.This was reduced to 4 weeks and the tenancy ended on 17 July 2025.
The premises are a semidetached unit at the end of a driveway that has a small turning bay for use by the tenant and their direct neighbours.
The tenant viewed the premises three times and signed the tenancy agreement which allotted her 1 parking space. This was confirmed by the Property Manager at the hearing.
It is the tenants’ evidence that at each viewing no other cars were parked in the turning bay. The tenant received the keys to the premises a few days early on 19 June due to a long weekend.
From Saturday 21 June a car was parked in the turning bay outside her new premises. The consequence of this was it was extremely difficult for the tenant to park and leave, requiring many turns to avoid the other car. Photographs of the parked car was provided showing how close they were.
On 21 June the tenant emailed the landlord enquired about the parking rules because the neighbours had 3 cars, two in a garage and one parked in the bay.
The Property Manager replied that he had spoken to them and found that they had an arrangement with the previous tenant to park in the bay and they asked if they could ‘work something out with you’. He said that he had no knowledge of this arrangement and had not noticed a car parking there during the home viewings.
The tenant replied on 23 June that she was not interested in making any arrangement and believed the matter as resolved.
On 24 June the neighbour’s car was still parked there and the tenant informed the landlord by email. Her father has spoken to them and they had said it was their park and to speak to the property manager.
On 24 June the Property Manager confirmed that he had told them that parking there must stop immediately and the area was to be left for a vehicle to turnaround.
Later, on 24 June the Property Manager emailed the tenant proposing another parking option where the neighbours could still park in the turning bay asking if there was a ‘possibility to move forward cooperatively or means to compromise’.
At this point the tenant said she thought the issue had been resolved and there would be no parking there but now it seemed like the landlord was proposing she agree to the neighbours still parking in the bay.
The Property Manager confirmed that the neighbours had only been allocated 2 parks but they had not issued a 14 day notice for a breach of this. They said that they ‘still backed the tenant’ but were trying to resolve this.
The tenant said she did not know this and being able to park directly outside her unit was important to her. She believed that they were not backing her. Her father called the agency on her behalf and it was agreed to reduce the tenancy term to 4 weeks and a full bond refund and no lease break fee would be charged.
The tenant said it was too stressful living there by herself after the parking issues and moved out on 24 June.
When the tenant drove by and went to clean the premises the car was still parked in the turning bay and she provided photographs to the landlords and copied to the Tribunal.
The tenant had been at the premises for 4 days. She sought full refund of her rent saying she did not get what she signed up for.
The landlord said she had only been at the premises for a few days while they had tried to resolve the issue, they agreed to reduce her tenancy to 4 weeks refunded the bond and did not seek a break lease fee to recognise that she was unhappy with the premise. A new tenancy started on 28 June and the owner had to cover the loss rent for this.
Section 78(1)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA, applies where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement has been induced by misrepresentation or mistake which does not accord with the true agreement. In this situation the Tribunal may set aside or vary the agreement.
The agreement has already been varied by mutual consent and reduced to a 4 week fixed term. The tenant is asking the Tribunal to set aside the agreement and refund all the rent.
I find that there was no inducement or misrepresentation. The tenancy came with a carpark and this was provided. There was no evidence that the Property Manager knew about the actions of the neighbours and that they had three cars and assumed that they could park there.
I find that the property manager failed to make it clear to the tenant that they had no obligation to mediate with the neighbours and failed to issue a 14 day notice to ensure compliance but this does not amount to an agreement that has been induced by misrepresentation.
I decline to set aside the tenancy agreement on this basis. Compensation
The tenant sought compensation for electricity costs. As explained at the hearing the tenant is liable for utility costs and outgoings associated with the use of the premises and this is not refunded. See section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damages
The tenant sought exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to deliver what she signed up for (in respect of a property with a car park), failure to follow up on further breaches by the neighbours who continued to park in the parking bay after being told that they could not, and failure to address her complaints about the Property Managers handling of the issues.
I have already found that there are no grounds for a misrepresentation claim.
The tenant believed that the continuing parking breaches by the neighbours after she had moved out showed that the landlords had not told the neighbours that they could not park there.
The landlord provided copies of emails dated 24 June to the neighbours telling them that they only had two carparks allotted to them and that the current arrangement was technically a breach of their lease. The relisting of the premises clearly shows that there is no parking in the turning bay for any tenants.
The tenant said that his was a bad and stressful experience for her and she has yet to rent again. She sought compensation for this, and I decline. The email exchanges relating to the ending of the tenancy, tenancy reduction and move out occurred on one day and the tenant decided then that she did not want to live there anymore. There was not a lot of time given to the property manager to enforce the breach by the neighbours and confirm their support of the tenant’s position. The communication between the parties was not good but I do not find that this amounts to a breach.
On Friday 27 June the operations manager acknowledged the complaint raised by the tenant and was told that she would receive a formal response once and internal review was conducted, and this was forwarded to her on 30 June 2025.The tenant may not be happy with the result of the review but it was completed.
The tenant could not direct me to any further breaches by the landlord.
I find that the tenant has not established the claims with evidence and the application is dismissed.
The landlords have no claim against the bond which was held pending this hearing. It will be released in full to the tenant.
The applicant was not successful so no reimbursement of filing fee or name suppression is ordered.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00104409) to Kate Bishop immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought a rent refund for the term of the tenancy, compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenancy was a fixed term, originally for a 6 month period, from 20 June 2025 to 20 December 2025.This was reduced to 4 weeks and the tenancy ended on 17 July 2025.
The premises are a semidetached unit at the end of a driveway that has a small turning bay for use by the tenant and their direct neighbours.
The tenant viewed the premises three times and signed the tenancy agreement which allotted her 1 parking space. This was confirmed by the Property Manager at the hearing.
It is the tenants’ evidence that at each viewing no other cars were parked in the turning bay. The tenant received the keys to the premises a few days early on 19 June due to a long weekend.
From Saturday 21 June a car was parked in the turning bay outside her new premises. The consequence of this was it was extremely difficult for the tenant to park and leave, requiring many turns to avoid the other car. Photographs of the parked car was provided showing how close they were.
On 21 June the tenant emailed the landlord enquired about the parking rules because the neighbours had 3 cars, two in a garage and one parked in the bay.
The Property Manager replied that he had spoken to them and found that they had an arrangement with the previous tenant to park in the bay and they asked if they could ‘work something out with you’. He said that he had no knowledge of this arrangement and had not noticed a car parking there during the home viewings.
The tenant replied on 23 June that she was not interested in making any arrangement and believed the matter as resolved.
On 24 June the neighbour’s car was still parked there and the tenant informed the landlord by email. Her father has spoken to them and they had said it was their park and to speak to the property manager.
On 24 June the Property Manager confirmed that he had told them that parking there must stop immediately and the area was to be left for a vehicle to turnaround.
Later, on 24 June the Property Manager emailed the tenant proposing another parking option where the neighbours could still park in the turning bay asking if there was a ‘possibility to move forward cooperatively or means to compromise’.
At this point the tenant said she thought the issue had been resolved and there would be no parking there but now it seemed like the landlord was proposing she agree to the neighbours still parking in the bay.
The Property Manager confirmed that the neighbours had only been allocated 2 parks but they had not issued a 14 day notice for a breach of this. They said that they ‘still backed the tenant’ but were trying to resolve this.
The tenant said she did not know this and being able to park directly outside her unit was important to her. She believed that they were not backing her. Her father called the agency on her behalf and it was agreed to reduce the tenancy term to 4 weeks and a full bond refund and no lease break fee would be charged.
The tenant said it was too stressful living there by herself after the parking issues and moved out on 24 June.
When the tenant drove by and went to clean the premises the car was still parked in the turning bay and she provided photographs to the landlords and copied to the Tribunal.
The tenant had been at the premises for 4 days. She sought full refund of her rent saying she did not get what she signed up for.
The landlord said she had only been at the premises for a few days while they had tried to resolve the issue, they agreed to reduce her tenancy to 4 weeks refunded the bond and did not seek a break lease fee to recognise that she was unhappy with the premise. A new tenancy started on 28 June and the owner had to cover the loss rent for this.
Section 78(1)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA, applies where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement has been induced by misrepresentation or mistake which does not accord with the true agreement. In this situation the Tribunal may set aside or vary the agreement.
The agreement has already been varied by mutual consent and reduced to a 4 week fixed term. The tenant is asking the Tribunal to set aside the agreement and refund all the rent.
I find that there was no inducement or misrepresentation. The tenancy came with a carpark and this was provided. There was no evidence that the Property Manager knew about the actions of the neighbours and that they had three cars and assumed that they could park there.
I find that the property manager failed to make it clear to the tenant that they had no obligation to mediate with the neighbours and failed to issue a 14 day notice to ensure compliance but this does not amount to an agreement that has been induced by misrepresentation.
I decline to set aside the tenancy agreement on this basis. Compensation
The tenant sought compensation for electricity costs. As explained at the hearing the tenant is liable for utility costs and outgoings associated with the use of the premises and this is not refunded. See section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damages
The tenant sought exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to deliver what she signed up for (in respect of a property with a car park), failure to follow up on further breaches by the neighbours who continued to park in the parking bay after being told that they could not, and failure to address her complaints about the Property Managers handling of the issues.
I have already found that there are no grounds for a misrepresentation claim.
The tenant believed that the continuing parking breaches by the neighbours after she had moved out showed that the landlords had not told the neighbours that they could not park there.
The landlord provided copies of emails dated 24 June to the neighbours telling them that they only had two carparks allotted to them and that the current arrangement was technically a breach of their lease. The relisting of the premises clearly shows that there is no parking in the turning bay for any tenants.
The tenant said that his was a bad and stressful experience for her and she has yet to rent again. She sought compensation for this, and I decline. The email exchanges relating to the ending of the tenancy, tenancy reduction and move out occurred on one day and the tenant decided then that she did not want to live there anymore. There was not a lot of time given to the property manager to enforce the breach by the neighbours and confirm their support of the tenant’s position. The communication between the parties was not good but I do not find that this amounts to a breach.
On Friday 27 June the operations manager acknowledged the complaint raised by the tenant and was told that she would receive a formal response once and internal review was conducted, and this was forwarded to her on 30 June 2025.The tenant may not be happy with the result of the review but it was completed.
The tenant could not direct me to any further breaches by the landlord.
I find that the tenant has not established the claims with evidence and the application is dismissed.
The landlords have no claim against the bond which was held pending this hearing. It will be released in full to the tenant.
The applicant was not successful so no reimbursement of filing fee or name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296879 — 14-day notice at 16A Oderings Place, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296879 — 14-day notice at 16A Oderings Place, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

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