What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4538509 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4538509?

R 1. The Tribunal Orders Suppression…: $110.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4538509?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4538509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9280369-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4538509 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4538509?

R 1. The Tribunal Orders Suppression…: $110.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4538509?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4538509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9280369-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4538509 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4538509. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
R 1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The tenan	$110.54		R 1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The tenan
Bond		$1,286.35

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

The application is dismissed.

The tenants consent to $110.54 being deducted from the bond for a lino repair.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,286.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately and apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $110.54 [The tenant/s]: $1,175.81

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager.

The tenants had a fixed term tenancy at an apartment building in [redacted]. It is agreed evidence there were many noisy parties by other occupants of the building while they lived there, as well as many visits by noise control and the police because of the disruption. The tenants found this to be intolerable and they asked to be released from the fixed term tenancy early. They left one month early, but their agreement with the landlord was they would pay rent until new tenants were found and pay the reasonable costs of the fixed term tenancy ending early.

The tenants have filed their application because they are not sure if their landlord did enough to protect their quiet enjoyment during the tenancy, they want compensation, exemplary damages, and a decision about whether they should have to pay the reasonable costs. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the landlord permit others to disturb the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the tenancy premises? • Was the amount paid to the landlord to end the tenancy reasonable? Did the landlord permit others to disturb the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the tenancy premises?

The tenants claim the landlord beached their quiet enjoyment of the apartment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Section 38(2) RTA specifies that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. The only possible breach here would be if the landlord permitted the disturbances.

The tenants lived in a building with a body corporate (BC). The BC and the apartment owners have agreed rules which govern the behaviour of occupants. The landlord was acting as agent for the owner. The landlord only rented this one apartment in the whole building. This means it had a very limited ability to address issues, because it was not able to take direct action against the occupants having parties.

The BC would not allow the tenants to address their concerns directly to the BC. Instead the tenants were required to forward all concerns through the landlord. Any follow up questions and answers from the BC also came via the landlord. I can understand why this process was frustrating for the tenants. It was also slow. As a result one of the tenants has a large file documenting all her correspondence with the landlord, replies from the BC via the landlord, as well as records of the noise control visits from the council requested under Official Information Act. The requests were made when it seemed like the BC did not believe the tenants concerns were genuine.

At the hearing the tenants submitted that the landlord was too slow to act at times and did not advocate sufficiently stridently on their behalf, which meant the landlord permitted the interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenants in the use of the premises. This is the tenants’ claim to prove because they are the applicants here. The landlord submitted it did everything it could to convey its concerns to the BC whenever the tenants advised it about parties and excessive noise.

I have looked at the supporting documents and I am satisfied the landlord did act promptly when passing messages on to the BC and the BC replies back to the tenants. I have also considered other decisions made by the Tribunal.

In [2023] NZTT 4554490 the adjudicator considered an application made by a tenant who was constantly disturbed by the noise from gym equipment in the gymnasium located on the floor below the tenant’s apartment. The landlord was not the landlord for the gymnasium. The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment was dismissed because the landlord had attempted to raise the issue of noise with the building manager. The tenant’s submission the landlord should have done more to “attempt to bring the hotel and the building manager to the table on his behalf” was not persuasive.

In [2023] NZTT 4562589 the facts were very similar to this particular application. The tenants complained about noise from the occupants in the unit upstairs. On one occasion the police were involved. The tenant and her children were traumatised by the noise. The landlord did not own the upstairs unit. The landlord took action by making contact with the owner of the upstairs unit, speaking with the upstairs occupant, and by contacting the BC on several occasions. The adjudicator found the landlord had not permitted a breach of quiet enjoyment because the landlord took all reasonable steps to address the noise coming from the occupant upstairs.

And in [2023] NZTT 4503512 the adjudicator considered whether the landlord permitted a breach of quiet enjoyment because the neighbour had beehives next to the tenancy premises. The adjudicator found that the landlord did not cause or permit the problem because the landlord had no control over what a neighbour did on his or her own property. The most the landlord could do was contact the neighbour and ask him to remove the hives, which she did without success. There were no other steps the landlord could take.

I find the landlord in this particular case did as much as it could to let the BC know about the parties. It did not talk to the people having the parties, but this was most likely because of the large building and the large number of occupants breaching the BC “no parties” rules. I find any inaction to be on the part of the BC, rather than on the part of the landlord. The claim the landlord permitted the breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. The tenants claim for compensation and exemplary damages is also dismissed.

Was the amount claimed by the landlord to end the tenancy reasonable?

Originally the tenants agreed to pay “reasonable costs” and rent until new tenants were found. At the hearing the tenants expressed concern that the costs claimed by the landlord were not reasonable, and that there was no real loss for the landlord because the costs would have been incurred anyway, one month later. The landlord submitted the invoice was reasonable and the process of advertising and conducting viewings started in November 2022, not one month before the end of the tenancy.

I find the $793.65 the tenants paid was reasonable. The itemised list of expenses included the usual jobs I would expect a landlord to complete. I accept that the process started more than a month before the end of the tenancy. Further, the RTA says landlords who consent to a termination of the tenancy in these circumstances are entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred. See section 44A RTA. Other orders

No order is made for the filing fee.

The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.

I am using my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. This is because the tenants have not breached any of their obligations under the RTA, parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to settle disputes, and any public interest is in the law rather than the names of the parties.

I note the tenants agreed that $2.68 for light bulbs could be taken out of the bond. I have not done this because the light bulbs were already part of the “reasonable costs” invoice given to the tenants on 22 February 2023.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4538509. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
R 1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The tenan	$110.54		R 1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The tenan
Bond		$1,286.35

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

The application is dismissed.

The tenants consent to $110.54 being deducted from the bond for a lino repair.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,286.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately and apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $110.54 [The tenant/s]: $1,175.81

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager.

Was the amount claimed by the landlord to end the tenancy reasonable?

No order is made for the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4538509 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4538509 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the amount claimed by the landlord to end the tenancy reasonable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the amount claimed by the landlord to end the tenancy reasonable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions