What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4402040 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 4402040?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4402040?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4402040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9340059-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4402040 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 4402040?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4402040?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4402040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9340059-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4402040 — Leaks

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details of the tenancy, along with the names of all other persons referred to in the order.
The claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held in person on 28 June 2023. [The tenant/s] and her representative, [The tenant’s representative] attended along with [The tenant’s support person] . The landlord was represented by [The property manager/s]. A preliminary hearing, also attended by both parties, was held on 21 February 2023.
The tenancy commenced on 3 August 2019 and was for a fixed term until 31 January 2020 when it became a periodic tenancy. The tenancy ended on 13 March 2023 as a result of [The tenant/s]giving notice.
[The tenant/s] tenancy was for [Tenancy address suppressed]. The unit has four bedrooms. Each bedroom has an ensuite and is separately tenanted. There are shared living, kitchen and laundry facilities. The unit is one of 8 similar units in the complex.
The tenant sought compensation ($20,000) for the following: a) the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the neighbouring tenants did not interfere with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy; b) the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in relation to: i.bedroom and bathroom window coverings ii.bird poo on and by the front door; iii.broken chairs and moving the couches c) the lock on the front door was not adequate and her bedroom door lock should have been changed at the start of the tenancy d) her rent was more than the rent of the other tenants in the unit e) miscellaneous jobs the tenant raised with the landlord. The tenant withdrew her claim relating to the downpipe.
The landlord claimed exemplary damages for the landlord failing to protect her from harassment from other tenants. The tenant’s claim for compensation: Did the landlord take all reasonable steps to ensure the neighbouring tenants did not interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in her use of the premises?
[The tenant/s] claims her quiet enjoyment of the premises was interfered with by other tenants and that the landlord did not take adequate steps to end the interference.
Section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the landlord shall “take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises”.
In considering the tenant’s claim I need to consider: a) whether the neighbouring tenants interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, and b) if that is the case, whether the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the interference does not continue. c) [The tenant/s] says that two of the tenants in the unit she lived in affected her quiet enjoyment.
She says [Tenant A] (here on in referred to as ‘Tenant A’), had bullying tendencies and targeted her, probably as she was the only female tenant in the unit for most of her tenancy. She says he took his frustrations out on her, swore at her on a daily basis and generally made her fearful. Tenant A occupies the bedroom upstairs directly above the tenant’s room. The tenant specifically referred to the following incidents: a) on 30 July 2022 when she was doing her washing Tenant A asked her why she had left the lights on. When she replied “because I live here”, he took offence. He banged on her bedroom door, then went outside and slammed her bedroom window shut, which caused her ornaments to fall off the window sill. An argument followed where they both swore abusively at each other; b) on 12 August 2022 the tenant was farewelling a friend when Tenant A asked her what she was doing slamming doors. The tenant reminded him he was to tell the property manager if he had anything to say about her actions and not to talk directly to her 1 . The tenant says Tenant A went back upstairs swearing and cursing as he went; c) on around 13 October 2022 2 the tenant left the unit and went to the letterbox to wait for a taxi. She heard a door slam and Tenant A yell from his upstairs bedroom “Don’t slam the f**ken door, I can’t wait till you leave. F**k off”. The tenant replied “Shut up have another drink you alcoholic”, She says Tenant A then lost control and was swearing at her, which everyone in the surrounding units/neighbourhood would have heard. The tenant’s view is that she did nothing to provoke Tenant A’s outburst. 3
The tenant says the incident on 30 July was the first incident between them, but that they had not got on that well prior. The tenant said after each incident it was very uncomfortable in the unit and there continued to be minor bickering on occasions between herself and Tenant A.
The tenant provided evidence of: a) her emails to the landlord sent soon after each incident, which outline her tenant’s version of events b) police reports made by the tenant for each of the incidents. The police did not take any further action after any of the events.
The landlord said this was a difficult situation as both the tenant and Tenant A were ringing and emailing them, complaining about each other. The landlord 1 The tenant being aware that Tenant A had been told by the property manager not to interact with her following the earlier incident above 2 The evidence presented regarding the date for this incident. It may have been 11, 12 or 13 October, however the incident details are consistent. 3 The relevant police report did not contain “F**k off” or any reference to the tenant calling Tenant A an alcoholic. As noted later in the decision Tenant A’s version of what was said was different again. found it hard to determine who instigated the incidents. The landlord’s actions after each incident are as follows: a) 30 July: Tenant A was warned not to interact with the tenant. The property manager advised the tenant on 5 August that Tenant A had been warned about his behaviour towards her and told not to interact with her, or touch her door or window; b) 12 August: the property manager offered to sit down with the tenant and Tenant A to attempt to sought out the issues between them. Tenant A accepted the offer but the tenant did not feel comfortable and declined. The property manager offered the tenant other properties she could move into. This was during covid lockdown and the property manager only had two properties to offer, neither of which suited the tenant. c) October 13: The property manager issued an anti-social behaviour breach notice on both the tenant and Tenant A. The versions of what happened given by the tenant and Tenant A differed. Tenant A told the property manager that he said “Stop slamming the bloody doors” and that the tenant replied “Get f***ed, go and have another drink” and he responded “Shut up and go back to [City]”.
The property manager also says that numerous calls, emails and texts were received from both tenants in addition to the above incidents. They said on the majority on occasions the tenant rang them they told her they would talk to Tenant A and did so.
The tenant referred to one incident on 8 January 2023 in relation to another tenant in the same unit, [Tenant B] (referred to as Tenant B). The tenant says her clothes were removed from the washing machine before the cycle had finished by Tenant B and left in the sink. A verbal argument developed between them and the tenant says Tenant B pushed her twice in the chest. She emailed the property manager and made a police report regarding the incident.
The property manager says they spoke to Tenant B about the incident and issued her with an anti-social behaviour breach notice, and told the tenant of their actions.
In considering what has happened, it is clear from the evidence that the tenant was at odds with Tenant A from at least 30 July 2022 when the first incident occurred until her tenancy ended. I cannot find the incidents referred to by the tenant occurred solely as a result of Tenant A’s actions. From the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant freely swore at Tenant A, used abusive language and did not hold back in calling him an “alcoholic”. The relationship between the tenants has deteriorated over time and their behaviour towards each other has escalated.
However I have no doubt that Tenant A has provoked the tenant and in that regard has intruded on the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy.
I accept that the landlord has been in a difficult position as they have had both tenants raising complaints about the other with them. In my view the landlord has acted responsibly and in reasonable time on each occasion they have received a complaint from the tenant. They have taken appropriate steps in talking to Tenant A, warning him, telling him not to interact with the tenant, and issuing an anti- social breach notice. The tenant was offered other tenancies, which sadly did not meet her needs.
The tenant has expressed that the property manager/s did not sit down and talk to her about Tenant A’s actions and that she has instigated all of the contact. I find the evidence does not show that is the case. While I understand why the tenant did not want to accept their mediation offer, the landlord did offer that as an opportunity to attempt to sort the situation out, which the tenant declined. I am satisfied that the property manager/s have contacted the tenant appropriately, albeit that face to face discussions occurred only at property inspections.
In relation to Tenant B, I find the issuing of an anti-social behaviour notice was a reasonable step to take in the circumstances.
Therefore I find that the landlord took appropriate steps to rectify the actions of Tenant A and Tenant B and has met its obligation under section 45(1)(e) in doing so. For that reason this part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises?

The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (section 45 (1)(b), RTA). This requires a landlord to respond within a reasonable time to requests for repairs that arise from maintenance issues affecting the tenant’s use of the property. If a landlord does not respond, or cannot respond, within a reasonable time, compensation is payable for any loss or inconvenience caused.
The tenant says the landlord failed to meet this obligation in relation to the following: Bedroom and bathroom window coverings:
On Friday 2 September 2022 a male tenant from another unit in the complex reached into the tenant’s window at about 1am and pulled down the venetian blind. The tenant told the property manager the next day, but the blind was not reinstalled until 16 September. Meantime the tenant said she had no privacy at night time as the only window covering she had was a duvet cover she had temporarily put up which was see-through when the lights were on.
The landlord sent a work order to a contractor to fix the blind on Monday 5 September. The contractor was to contact the tenant directly for access. The tenant advised on the following Monday 12 September that no one had contacted her about fixing the blind, and the landlord rang the contractor who then contacted the tenant on the same day. The blinds were reinstalled on 16 September.
I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that contractors were taking 2-3 weeks during that period to get maintenance work such as this done. It is unfortunate that the blind concerned was in the tenant’s bedroom but I note that the tenant emailed the landlord she had put a blanket up which covered the full length of the windows and which was told the landlord was “slightly see- through” 4 . I am satisfied that this lead the landlord to understand that there was no particular urgency. I find in the circumstances the landlord has responded to the tenant’s request for repairs to the blinds in reasonable time.
The tenant also raised that there was no blind or other window covering on the bathroom window which faced the street and meant she had no privacy if the window was open or the light was on.
The landlord confirmed that the window glass in the bathroom was frosted and that hooks were installed on the window frame after the tenant raised this issue, so that she could install curtains should she wish to do so.
I appreciate that the tenant felt exposed because of the position of her bathroom to the street and other tenants in neighbouring units, however I find the landlord met its obligations in providing frosted glass in the bathroom and hooks in the event that the tenant wanted to hang her own curtains.
The tenant raised that the rod to open and close the venetians in her room failed a number of times but agreed this was fixed by the landlord each time it was raised.
Accordingly this part of the application is dismissed. Bird poo by and on the front door.
The tenant says there was a problem with bird poo constantly being on the front door, door handle, exterior entrance area and front door mat. She cleaned the front door and mat on a regular basis and believes this was a health and safety issue, and that the landlord had failed to clean the area sufficiently.
The landlord was aware of this issue but was only contacted twice by the tenant about it during her tenancy. The landlord says the issue was not raised by any of the other tenants in the unit. Each time the tenant raised the issue, the landlord arranged with Tenant A to remove the bird poo. The landlord/property managers had a separate contract with Tenant A whereby if something needed cleaning that was the landlord’s obligation, Tenant A was contracted to do the cleaning. 4 See the tenant’s email to the property manager dated 12 September 2022.
The accepted cleaning the bird poo from this area is its responsibility.
The tenant voluntarily cleaned the bird poo, but in doing so did not raise with the landlord that the area needed cleaning, except on two occasions. I am satisfied this resulted in the landlord not having a correct understanding of the ongoing nature of the issue. Had the landlord been contacted more, and had failed to clean the mess each time, then I may have found the landlord had failed to maintain the property on the basis that it needed to take some action to prevent the birds perching so that their excrement was on and by the front door. However given the few instances the tenant has complained to landlord and the lack of photographic evidence to show the extent of the problem I find the landlord has met its obligations as it has carried out required maintenance/cleaning following the tenant’s requests. Should the chairs in the tenant’s room have been replaced by the landlord?
The tenant’s view is that the landlord should have replaced the two dining chairs in her room because the screws in both chairs became loose and each chair had a screw that fell out.
After the tenant advised the screws had fallen out the landlord offered to replace the chairs, however the tenant chose to replace the chairs herself through [redacted].
The tenant’s claim relating to the chairs is dismissed. The landlord was ready and willing to replace the chairs, but the tenant decided to replace them from an alterative source. The landlord has not breached any obligation owed to the tenant. Should the landlord have moved the couches without the tenant’s assistance?
The tenant received a call at short notice from the property manager that the landlord (owner) had a new couch to replace the existing couch in her room. The tenant left her course at [redacted] to meet the landlord and helped him move the couches, which she says were heavy. The tenant’s view is that she should not have had to leave her course to assist the landlord and that the property managers should have assisted him.
I understand the tenant wanted to be at the premises when the couches were moved, rather than have the landlord go into her room when she was not there. However the tenant could have told the property manager when they contacted hers that the time did not suit her and arrange for delivery at a different time. Likewise the tenant could have advised she was not able to help move the couches.
I find the landlord (which includes the owner and the property manager) has not breached any obligation owed to the tenant in this matter. Was the lock on the front door adequate? Should the lock on the tenant’s room door have been changed at the start of the tenancy?
The landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are secure (section 46(1)(,RTA).
The tenant’s room is next to the front door. From the start of the tenancy the tenant says she had concerns about the security of the front door lock as it was a combination lock rather than a lock requiring a key. She says the lock mechanism allowed the door to be left unlocked from the inside and that people were entering the unit who she did not know. She said the batteries in the combination lock went flat often.
The tenant also had concerns about her room lock. She said some of her possessions had gone missing and she believed someone else had a key. She understood the lock should have been rekeyed at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s view is that a combination lock is effectively the same as a lock requiring a key, and that both mechanisms mean a door can be left unlocked from the inside. The landlord noted that it cannot control the actions of tenants in leaving a door unlocked regardless of whether the lock is a combination or a key mechanism. The landlord confirmed the batteries did go flat twice during the tenant’s tenancy and that a property manager immediately changed the batteries. A locksmith was sent out to check why the batteries were going flat and the landlord learned the wrong batteries had been installed. Since then the property managers say there has not been any issue with the batteries.
The landlord confirmed that the key to the tenant’s room was changed/rekeyed soon after the tenant raised her concerns with them that someone else may have a key. The landlord also confirmed that all keys previous tenants had been provided with had been returned to them.
After considering the evidence I find that any issues with the front door being left open were a result of the actions of the tenants rather than the failure of the landlord to provide and maintain the lock. I concur with the landlord that a combination lock is an acceptable lock under the RTA and find that the landlord reacted in reasonable time to resolve the flat battery issue.
I find a landlord does not have an obligation to rekey a door every time a tenant changes unless there is reason to. I am satisfied there was no reason to rekey the door prior to the tenant’s tenancy and that the landlord took the required steps in rekeying the door after the tenant told the landlord of her concerns. Accordingly I find the landlord has not breached its obligations under s 46(1). Was the tenant’s rent more than the rent of the other tenants in the unit? If so, is the tenant entitled to compensation or reduced rent?
The tenant was paying $280.00 a week for rent. In August 2022 she learned she was paying more for her room than other sole occupants of rooms in the same unit, who were paying $260.00/week.
The Tribunal can only make an order reducing rent is if it is satisfied that the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount (s 25(1), RTA). “Market rent” is defined in s 25(3) as: “the rent, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant may expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies for comparable premises in the locality of similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.”
As stated in section 25(3) the personal circumstances of neither the landlord or the tenant can be considered in making a market rent assessment.
My view is that in a situation such as this where rooms in a unit are individually tenanted, it would not be uncommon that tenants may be paying different weekly rents. That is because the tenancies are likely to have been entered into at different times, and the rent appropriate for the rooms can vary depending on market factors at the time each tenancy commences. Section 25(3) above recognises that rents can vary, which I understand to be a significant reason for the provision determining that the Tribunal can only reduce rent if the rent being paid is substantially more than the market rent.
The landlord’s evidence shows the same rent was paid for the room by the immediately previous tenant and the tenant following this tenancy. The landlord has also provided details of the rent paid per room for the three units in the Hunter Street complex that it manages, and the market rent statistics from the Tenancy Services website for 1 bedroomed rooms collated from bond information for the period 1 November 2022 to 30 April 2023.
The landlord’s evidence is persuasive the rent paid by the tenant at no time during her tenancy substantially exceeded the market rent. Accordingly this part of the tenant’s claim also is unsuccessful. Miscellaneous jobs that the tenant dealt with:
The tenant raised that she was the tenant in the unit that raised all the issues requiring attention with the landlord, and that the other tenants did not do so. I understand this included issues relating to the water cylinder repair; damaged drawers; mailboxes and numbering; recycling; fridge flooding and plumbing. The tenant understands that it is a tenant’s obligation to inform the landlord of maintenance and repairs that are needed, but says it was time consuming and tiring for her given that no other tenant/s in the unit took responsibility to do so.
The tenant’s issue is with the failure of the other tenants in the unit rather than any breach by the landlord of its responsibilities. Any of the tenants in the unit could have contacted the landlord about any of the maintenance and repair issues as they all have the right to do so under their individual tenancy agreements.
As I find no breach by the landlord relating to this issue the tenant’s claim regarding this is also dismissed. The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages:
The tenant claims exemplary damages for the landlord failing to protect her from harassment by the other tenants, however there is no obligation under the RTA on the landlord to do so other than the landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure neighbouring tenants do not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. This issue is dealt with above and I have determined that the landlord did not breach its obligations under s 45(1)(e).
Even had I found that the landlord had breached section 45(1)(e), exemplary damages are not available as this breach of this provision is not deemed to be an unlawful act.
Exemplary damages are only available where it is specified that breach of a provision in the RTA is deemed to be an unlawful act 5 .
For the above reasons the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Suppression.
The Tribunal of its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders that the tenant’s and landlord’s names and any identifying details of the tenancy are not to be published. The names of any other tenants named in this decision are also not to be published. (see 95A (4), RTA). In doing so I am satisfied that the decision does not raise any issues of significant interest to the public and that there is no public interest benefit in publishing the parties’ names. 5 See section 109, RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 4402040 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4402040 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions