How much money was awarded in case 4597049?

Compensation: $2,150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4597049?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4597049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9226166-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4597049?

Compensation: $2,150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4597049?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4597049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9226166-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4597049 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4597049 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4597049 — net $2,170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,150.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,170.44

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

By consent, the tenant may end the tenancy by giving the landlord at least 14 days’ written notice.

William Dench must pay [The tenant/s] $2,170.44, calculated as shown in the table below, by 7 August 2023. To the extent that it remains unpaid, the tenant may set the sum payable off against the rent.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by his agent, Mr Fraser.

The tenant has applied to be released from this fixed term tenancy and for compensation for the landlord’s interference with her quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The landlord has agreed to the tenant ending the tenancy by giving at least 14 days written notice. I have made a consent order to that effect.

The landlord also accepts that he has interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, and he has offered to pay her $1,500 compensation in addition to a $350 rent waiver already given. The tenant says that the landlord’s offer falls short of reasonable compensation.

The issues for me to decide are therefore what has been the extent of the landlord’s interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and what amount of compensation is she reasonably entitled to receive for the interference? Background

The tenancy began on 23 September 2022, and it is for a fixed term to 24 September 2023. If the tenancy has not ended before then, it will continue as a periodic tenancy.

The premises are on the lower floor of a two-story house that has been divided into two separate dwellings. The house is on a sloping section and the tenant’s access to the premises is from below the house.

The upper story was not tenanted when the tenancy was granted. The landlord lives in Auckland, and he told the tenant that he would be staying in the upper story for weekends from time to time but otherwise it would not be occupied. This was important for the tenant because she works from home, and she therefore wanted a degree of quiet.

The upper story has remained untenanted, and it has been occupied by the landlord and by his guests for short periods from time to time.

The landlord commenced work on the upper story and outside in February 2023. It consisted of drainage work that was needed due to a blocked drain, other drainage work and renovation work to the upper story which was a precursor to the landlord renting it out.

The work has caused the tenant annoyance, discomfort and it has interfered with her privacy. She said that by the beginning of June, the noise from the work had become intolerable. Law

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person".

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.

There is also a common law principle that a landlord must not derogate from the grant. This means that a landlord must not do anything or allow anything to be done that lessens the value of the tenancy to the tenant.

Section 35 of the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2019 may also be relevant. It sates that where a person A is induced to enter a contract by another person’s B’s misrepresentation, A is entitled to compensation from B as if the misrepresentation is a term of the contract. Discussion

The basic facts are not in dispute although the extent of the disturbance suffered by the tenant and the effect that it has had on her are disputed. The landlord accepts that he told the tenant that he would be using the upper story intermittently and that was the tenant’s expectation.

That was not put into the tenancy agreement, but I find that it was an expectation that the tenant relied on when she entered the tenancy agreement. It was therefore a term of the agreement for the purposes of this case. I find that the occasional use of the upper story by friends of the landlord was not a breach of the term.

The tenant complained that sound proofing between the floors was poor and that she could hear the TV and conversations from the upper story. There are no regulations regarding sound proofing that would apply in this case, and I have no technical information regarding the sound proofing. Therefore, I cannot take it into consideration except to the extent that work carried out in the upper story was in breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement.

The work that was needed because there was a blocked drain cannot result in any compensation for the tenant. If work is needed unexpectedly, the landlord cannot be held responsible for that. Therefore, that work must be separated from work that the landlord chose to carry out during the tenancy, such as the painting work and drain improvements. But all work must be carried with proper consideration for the tenant.

The work that the landlord chose to have done includes the renovation of the upper story. A landlord would normally be able to carry out such work, provided the landlord took reasonable care not to cause disruption to the tenant but in this case, the landlord was aware of the tenant’s need for quiet, and he represented that he would be using the upper story only intermittently.

The tenant said that she had to take 16 days sick leave from her work because she was so disturbed by the work that she lost sleep, and she could not carry out her work duties in the [Redacted] industry which called for a high degree of concentration. She put her loss of wages at $4,320.

The tenant said that she sometimes had to sleep during the day due to her work hours and that she had university work to complete during the day for which she needed quiet.

The landlord put forward evidence and a detailed statement that contradicted the tenant’s evidence to some extent. What is most striking is that the tenant did not make any complaint to the landlord about the work until 6 June. At that point the landlord put a stop to the work. If the tenant had complained sooner, the landlord could have either stopped the work then or at least taken steps to mitigate the effect of the work on the tenant.

The landlord does accept that the work was not well managed. There were occasions when work continued late into the evening.

On the face of it, the landlord’s proposal to pay the tenant $1,500 compensation, in addition to the $350 rent waiver already given to her, appears to be quite reasonable. But after considering the evidence, I think it underestimates the effect of the painting work. Whilst painting work is not necessarily noisy, there will be noise associated with it and I accept the tenant’s evidence that noise travelled easily from the top story to the premises.

Because the tenant was given to understand that use of the upper story would be limited, she is entitled to compensation for the time that discretionary work was undertaken there.

I do not accept the tenants’ suggestion of $1,500 for moving costs. Parties must act reasonably to reduce their loss and expense (mitigation) and I do not accept that using professional movers in these circumstances is reasonable. As well, the tenant may have decided to move at the end of the fixed term in any event.

Nor do I accept the claim for loss of earnings/sick leave taken. The tenant should have told the landlord the effect that the work was having on her if it was causing her to take time off work. The landlord could not have foreseen that the tenant would suffer such a loss.

Taking all things into account, I find that total compensation in the sum of $2,500 is appropriate. The landlord has waived $350 rent and so I have made an order for the landlord to pay the tenant $2,150.

The tenant has had substantial success and so I have awarded her the filing fee.

Because the tenant has had substantial success, I have granted her name suppression.

I have no information on whether the tenant has ended the tenancy. If she hasn’t done so, there may be an issue as to when the landlord can resume and complete the work and tenant the upper story. The view I take at this stage is that the landlord will be free to do so after 24 September. In my view the landlord’s assurance regarding the use of the upper story should be limited to the fixed term.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4597049 — net $2,170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,150.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,170.44