What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4616711 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4616711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4616711?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4616711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9758401-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4616711 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4616711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4616711?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4616711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9758401-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 93 Geraldine Street, Edgeware, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4616711 — Unit Titles

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Round and Mr Guest represented the landlord.

The tenant, Ms Antill, applied for comonesation for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment. She also applied for compensation for the landlord issuing an unlawful notice to terminate the tenancy but she withdrew that claim at the hearing.

Ms Antill had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 26 November 2021 and ending on 14 June 2023. The premises consist of one of several units in a unit title development. Ms Antill claims that her right to quiet enjoyment was interfered with by contractors replacing a fence at the property, painting the exterior of the building, and water blasting the roof. The fence, walls, and roof are part of the common property, and therefore serve all of the units in the building.

Ms Antill worked from home, and she said that she could not work while the contractors were there due to the noise they created. She said that she asked the landlord to provide her with prior notice of the date and times the contractors were intending to complete the work so that she could find an alternative space to work, but they did not do so.

The work was arranged by the body corporate and the body corporate advised that they could not confirm the dates the contractors would be at the property completing the work (other than when it would start) because the contractors worked to their own scheduled which was weather dependent. Has the landlord breached Ms Antill’s right to quiet enjoyment?

The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2).

I find that Ms Antill has not established that the landlord is in breach of section 38 of the Act. The work completed on the property was not completed under the instructions of the landlord, it was work completed under the instructions of the body corporate and was completed on common property which is owned by the body corporate. Thus, any interruption to Ms Antill’s quiet enjoyment was not caused by the landlord or by or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord.

Ms Antill claims that the landlord should have been more involved with the body corporate when decisions were made to complete the work and required the contractors to set out the dates/times they would be completing the work. However, while one unit owner could ask the body corporate to make a decision on a proposed matter, there is no certainty, and in the circumstances here no likelihood, that the body corporate would agree. I am therefore not satisfied that any failure by the landlord to engage in the decision making regarding the work has caused the interference with Ms Antill’s right to quiet enjoyment.

Ms Antill’s claim is therefore dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Round and Mr Guest represented the landlord.
The tenant, Ms Antill, applied for comonesation for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment. She also applied for compensation for the landlord issuing an unlawful notice to terminate the tenancy but she withdrew that claim at the hearing.
Ms Antill had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 26 November 2021 and ending on 14 June 2023. The premises consist of one of several units in a unit title development. Ms Antill claims that her right to quiet enjoyment was interfered with by contractors replacing a fence at the property, painting the exterior of the building, and water blasting the roof. The fence, walls, and roof are part of the common property, and therefore serve all of the units in the building.
Ms Antill worked from home, and she said that she could not work while the contractors were there due to the noise they created. She said that she asked the landlord to provide her with prior notice of the date and times the contractors were intending to complete the work so that she could find an alternative space to work, but they did not do so.
The work was arranged by the body corporate and the body corporate advised that they could not confirm the dates the contractors would be at the property completing the work (other than when it would start) because the contractors worked to their own scheduled which was weather dependent. Has the landlord breached Ms Antill’s right to quiet enjoyment?
The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2).
I find that Ms Antill has not established that the landlord is in breach of section 38 of the Act. The work completed on the property was not completed under the instructions of the landlord, it was work completed under the instructions of the body corporate and was completed on common property which is owned by the body corporate. Thus, any interruption to Ms Antill’s quiet enjoyment was not caused by the landlord or by or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord.
Ms Antill claims that the landlord should have been more involved with the body corporate when decisions were made to complete the work and required the contractors to set out the dates/times they would be completing the work. However, while one unit owner could ask the body corporate to make a decision on a proposed matter, there is no certainty, and in the circumstances here no likelihood, that the body corporate would agree. I am therefore not satisfied that any failure by the landlord to engage in the decision making regarding the work has caused the interference with Ms Antill’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Ms Antill’s claim is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4616711 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 2, 93 Geraldine Street, Edgeware, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4616711 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 2, 93 Geraldine Street, Edgeware, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions