What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4444624 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4444624?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4444624?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4444624?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9769476-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4444624 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4444624?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4444624?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4444624?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9769476-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4444624 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The remainder of the landlord’s application is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord’s application for work orders has been before the Tribunal several times during the year. On each occasion I have made work orders on an incremental basis with adjournments on each occasion to monitor progress.
The tenant (at times reluctantly) has largely complied with the work orders. Today, the landlord’s representative withdrew the remainder of the landlord’s application. The tenant’s cross application
The tenant has applied for compensation of $41,320.00 for what he alleges have been continuing breaches by the landlord.
The breaches comprise allegations of harmful behaviour towards him by his neighbour (also a tenant of the landlord); alleged visits by the landlord’s staff members without notice; the landlord forcing him to get rid of his goods; poor communication and a failure to respond to his complaints; a failure to promptly attend to repairs; and stress and mental duress.
Today the tenant applied to include an application for a direction that his landlord develop policies to ensure that persons such as him (by which he means persons who are neuro diverse and who suffer from anxiety and depression) are treated better and are understood. Discussion
Usually, the Tribunal would assess each alleged breach and weight the evidence before making a finding on each matter raised.
That is not possible in this case because the tenant’s allegations are vague both as to time and date.
The tenant said he had detailed records of all calls and text messages as well as recordings of discussions he had had with the landlord’s staff members.
The tenant said it would take him several months to retrieve that information, and some of it (such as the recordings he made without the knowledge of the person he was speaking to) would not be considered legal.
In my last order dated 17 October 2023, I made a direction for the tenant to file a statement of claim (and for the landlord to reply). Each party complied. But what is missing is evidence to support the alleged breaches.
The landlord’s representative said she was therefore unable to respond in any detail because she did not know what she was responding to. Her submission is noted and accepted.
The landlord’s representative said she had not been able to locate any details of the alleged incidents the tenant complained about, save for a few.
Despite the tenant’s assertion that he has been poorly treated, objectively viewed he has not been.
If this were a tenancy with a private landlord, it is likely there would have been an application to terminate the tenancy long ago.
That it is a social housing tenancy does not mean that the parties’ rights and responsibilities are any different. But it does mean that the landlord has taken a more conciliatory approach than might otherwise have been the case.
So too has the Tribunal. It has tried to make orders on the landlord’s application to gently get the tenant to remove rubbish from the premises. The gentle approach has largely succeeded. Consequently, the landlord has withdrawn the remainder of its application.
The tenant described himself as being neuro diverse. He said he experiences depression and anxiety, conditions, he said, the landlord’s behaviour requiring him to get rid of his goods, and not responding to his calls and complaints exacerbated.
As I have noted the evidence to support these allegations is lacking.
That the landlord’s staff members might have visited the premises without notice is not necessarily a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Inspections must be notified, but a landlord can visit the premises to deliver notices or to attend to matters such as those described by the landlord’s representative, one of which was to address concerns expressed by the police and the Fire Service about the accumulation of rubbish.
The tenant considers that he should be able to choose how he lives. To an extent that is correct. But as a person who rents, his rights and responsibilities are different from a person who owns a property.
Over the several hearings the Tribunal conducted to deal with the issue of rubbish removal, it became clear that the tenant does not accept that the exterior rubbish was a problem, nor that the landlord was reasonable in requiring it to be removed.
The Tribunal takes an objective view. From that lens, it was obvious that there was significant rubbish at the outside of the premises, in addition to some chattels that would not objectively be viewed as rubbish.
The landlord’s representative confirmed that complaints were made by neighbours of vermin, odour and flies being a nuisance a result of the large amount of rubbish. The landlord had to act on those complaints. The tenant was in breach of his statutory responsibilities.
The tenant described threats and intimidation from someone residing at the next-door property when the tenant there was absent.
The landlord’s representative produced evidence that the landlord acted on this tenant’s complaints and issued a breach notice to the other tenant in September 2022.
The tenant said the neighbour had ‘settled down’, did not have other people at his premises, and there was no longer any real problem.
So, the landlord’s action on the tenant’s complaints concerning the behaviour of his neighbour had the desired effect.
The tenant was critical of how the landlord dealt with the repair of a water issue at the premises. He said both electricians and plumbers had to make several visits when he believed just one tradesman should have been able to do the repair.
Responsibility for part of the problem lay with the Council, so there were delays. The tenant said the issue was largely solved now. Delays such as this can be frustrating whether for a person who rents or for an owner. That frustration does not mean that compensation must be ordered. The evidence, such as it is, does not establish that the landlord failed to maintain and repair.
The bulk of the tenant’s claim is for mental duress ($21,000.00) and stress ($3,285.00). In part, this is due to the landlord pursuing its application for work orders for the tenant to remove rubbish. He said he claimed $1,000.00 per day as the stress ‘pushed my boundaries to the point of breakdown’.
I find neither of these claims proved.
The tenant fails to recognise that the landlord was well within its rights to require him to remove the large quantity of rubbish from the exterior of the premises which was proving a nuisance to neighbours, and which the Fire Service said posed a significant risk in the event of fire.
Had this been a private tenancy it would likely have been terminated long ago for this behaviour by the tenant. That he is neuro diverse and has other mental health conditions does not mean that he is relieved of his RTA responsibilities as a tenant.
The landlord’s representative said there was a special role within the landlord organisation – a Wellbeing Support Advisor - to assist tenants with the challenges this tenant faces. The tenant said that the person who performed that role was lovely, but she did not understand neuro diverse people.
This support would not have been available had the tenancy been a private tenancy. How the tenant perceives his interactions with his social housing landlord is subjective, no doubt coloured by his neuro diversity. But his responsibilities as a tenant are the same as for any tenant whether in a social housing tenancy or not.
Objectively viewed, the landlord did not commit any breaches of its responsibilities under the RTA that would justify any award of compensation, let alone an award of the magnitude sought by the tenant. Its application for work orders was made on an objectively reasonable basis. It was the Tribunal that kept adjourning the hearing to gently guide the tenant towards compliance. So, the delayed process cannot be laid at the landlord’s door.
Although the tenant was upset with the landlord insisting that he remove rubbish (and he was upset with the Tribunal as well) he has largely complied, to his credit. But it seems that his application against the landlord was a reflection of his displeasure. Though he might consider himself the innocent victim of bad behaviour by the landlord, the evidence does not establish that. He is to a large extent the author of his own misfortune.
The impression the Tribunal gained today was that the tenant, perhaps reluctantly, has complied with the orders the Tribunal has previously made. The landlord is satisfied with the progress to date and seeks nothing further at this time. And the other issues he raised have largely resolved.
The Tribunal encourages the tenant to continue to liaise with the landlord’s Wellbeing Support Advisor, especially when his condition means that his stress levels are high. While he might consider that she does not understand neuro diverse people, it is probable that she has the skill set for the job. As I have noted, that is a resource he would not otherwise have access to. Maintaining contact might prevent further aggravations in the future.
Finally, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to require any landlord, social housing provider or not, to develop policies as to how it operates. The Tribunal has authority only to consider applications, and make orders, according to the provisions of the RTA. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed. The remainder of the landlord’s application is withdrawn. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to an order because its application is successful. Usually, if an application is unsuccessful the Tribunal will decline to make a name suppression order. However, the tenant’s mental health condition is a factor the Tribunal should properly take into account. The tenant’s name is therefore suppressed as well. There is no public interest in this order being published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4444624 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4444624 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions