What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4578133 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4578133?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4578133?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4578133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9820643-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4578133 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4578133?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4578133?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4578133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9820643-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4578133 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider the tenant’s claim that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a neighbouring tenant (hereafter referred to as “Tenant A”) does not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The landlord attended with legal representation and the tenant attended with her partner as her advocate. The claim is somewhat linked to a prior Tenancy Tribunal application (TT4545269) in which the landlord claimed termination of the tenancy on the basis of anti-social behaviour.
The tenant lives in a unit which is part of a 12-unit village. The tenants are predominantly vulnerable or elderly. The tenant and Tenant A are the landlord’s tenants. General Law
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might best be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral evidence at the hearing. I must consider all that evidence in coming to a decision on whether something is more likely than not. In this matter, the onus or job of proving the claim falls on the tenant.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all the evidence presented by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision. The Tenant’s claim
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that Tenant A has not caused or permitted any interference with the reasonable comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. See section 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant submits that the landlord failed to discourage Tenant A from interfering with the tenant’s privacy. The tenant alleges that the landlord’s previous Tribunal application was based entirely on complaints made by Tenant A and that those claims were baseless and linked solely to the tenant’s partner’s noisy vehicle muffler and offensive bumper sticker.
The tenant’s allegations regarding Tenant A include the following: • Tenant A has left sinister letters in the tenant’s letterbox which the landlord has refused to address. • Tenant A constantly monitors the tenant by keeping a log of the tenant’s visitors. • Tenant A has a video camera aimed at the tenant’s premises. • Tenant A picks on the tenant and the landlord has done nothing about it.
The tenant feels like she is under surveillance and always keeps her curtains closed as a result. The landlord’s submissions
The landlord’s representative submits that whilst the landlord is a private landlord, the majority of its tenants have sensitivities which the landlord manages with the benefit of advice from Tenancy Services and legal counsel.
The landlord submits that it received a large number of complaints relating to the tenant’s partner’s noisy car and that it was under an obligation to investigate the matter and take action. The landlord indicated that the tenant’s partner’s car is technically not allowed to park on the premises but that no action had been taken in this regard.
The landlord referred to a timeline logging various complaints and action taken with regard to the tenant. The log references various 14-day notices sent and meetings between the tenant and landlord to discuss issues arising. In early 2023, the landlord log records various attempts to contact the tenant by telephone to discuss anti-social behaviour.
The landlord states that for privacy reasons it cannot provide a copy of the same log as it relates to Tenant A but confirmed that it takes the same action in relation to every tenant in the 12-unit village.
The landlord confirmed that it had written to Tenant A regarding the tenant’s concerns as to her privacy and that the matter would escalate if any further evidence of Tenant A interfering with the tenant’s privacy was brought to the landlord’s attention. The Law and Findings
The issue is whether the landlord breached section 45(1)(e) RTA by not taking all reasonable steps to ensure that Tenant A causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises and if so, whether compensation or exemplary damages are payable.
That section can be broken down into a number of relevant questions: • First, has there been a breach of the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises. • If the answer is no, then that is the end of the matter. • If the answer is yes, has the breach been caused by another tenant of the landlord? • If the answer is no, then that is the end of the matter. • If the answer to the enquiry is yes, we then move onto the third question which is whether the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the breach.
The evidence of the tenant is reasonably specific. She says that Tenant A has a vendetta against her and has written sinister letters to her and installed a camera recording the movements of the tenant and her visitors.
The right to “reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy” is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, landlord’s agents.
Under Section 38(2) RTA there is reference to the privacy of the tenant and the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that this is not interfered with. In Thompson- Huntley v KJP Investments Limited 1 , the Tribunal noted that the right to privacy under the RTA does not directly correspond to the right to privacy under the Privacy Act 1993. The purpose of the section is to ensure tenants are free from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in their private lives while living at the tenancy premises.
The concept of reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises is a fundamental requirement under tenancy law. It involves the right to live and enjoy the premises in peace and without reasonable disturbance. Premises extends to non-exclusive areas such as shared lawns, gardens, and facilities. The words “permit” includes “turning a blind eye to the obvious or not taking any reasonable steps to prevent”.
I have carefully listened to the evidence at the hearing and have reviewed the documents filed by the parties. The landlord argues that there is no evidence that Tenant A has a camera which takes photos of the tenant’s premises. The landlord states that there is approximately 20-25 metres between the premises of the tenant and Tenant A and there is a hedge in between them. The landlord further states that the camera (if it did exist) it points to a shared backyard. I found this evidence in particular conflicting as the landlord on the one hand states that there is no camera but on the other claims to know where it is pointed.
Based on the evidence provided, I consider that it is more likely than not that Tenant A has a camera pointed at either the tenant’s premises or a shared area. As mentioned, the concept of privacy in a tenancy perspective is not the same as the right to privacy contained in the Privacy Act 1993. I find that any view of the tenant’s premises or a shared area from a video camera is an unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in the tenant’s private life.
Accordingly, I find that there has been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. Having made that finding, I have no difficulty in holding that the breach has been caused by another tenant of the landlord.
The next question is has the landlord taken all reasonable steps to prevent the breach? Under the law the landlord has a positive obligation to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure none of their other tenants’ cause or permit an interference with the peace comfort or privacy of other tenants. I make the following observations regarding the landlord’s responsibilities under section 45(1)(e) RTA. 1 (2021) NZTT Waitakere 4260498
First, I note that section requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to prevent the interference. Second, what might be considered a “reasonable step” must be assessed in relation to the given set of circumstances. A landlord may respond in a different manner depending on the nature of the complaint, for example a complaint about isolated case of noise will likely be dealt with quite differently to a complaint involving allegations of criminal conduct. The nature, extent and impact of the tenant’s breach will become crucial in any analysis of “reasonable steps” taken by the landlord.
In this particular case, the landlord finds itself in a difficult position. They have not ignored the concerns raised by the tenant. They have investigated and written to Tenant A regarding the matter. The landlord also stated that 14-day notices and anti-social behaviour notices have also been issued to Tenant A. I have no reason to consider that the landlord is being untruthful in this regard.
I find that the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that Tenant A does not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises. The tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed.
I note that the tenant indicated that Tenant A’s behaviour had improved, which is likely linked to the action taken by the landlord above, and that the landlord and tenant met recently, and amicable discussions have taken place. I further note that the landlord indicated during the hearing that if evidence of a camera being pointed towards the tenant’s property is provided it would take further action. Give the comments at paragraph 26, the landlord should similarly take action if a camera is pointed towards a shared backyard.
I further note that the landlord is yet to determine appropriate action following methamphetamine testing which indicates that the premises are potentially uninhabitable. Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The landlord has been wholly successfully in defending the application so the landlord’s names and identifying details are suppressed.
I consider it in the public interest that the tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed and is ordered accordingly. T Lee-Lewis 10 January 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4578133 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4578133 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions