How much money was awarded in case 4630289?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630289?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9509572-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4630289?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630289?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9509572-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4630289 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4630289 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the joint tenant’s name (VP) and the owner’s names.

At Home Property Management Limited must pay [suppressed] and Mihir Bharat Parekh $250.00 immediately, being compensation for a breach of quiet enjoyment.

Reasons

Mr Young (on behalf of the agent company) and Mr Parekh (for both tenants) attended the hearing on 14 September 2023.

The tenancy started on 28 April 2020 and ended on 8 August 2023.

The tenants made this application prior to the tenancy ending, saying that the landlord’s agent has breached their quiet enjoyment of the tenancy and harassed them.

At the hearing, the tenant said that he and his wife would not have moved from the premises except for this. He says that the move has cost them financially as they now pay a higher rent. The application seeks exemplary damages (like a fine) for harassment.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.

This is known as the ‘right to quiet enjoyment’ and can be understood as the right to live in your home, as your home. That is, in the way that you choose (subject to your lawful obligations).

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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

I have treated this application as being against the agents, not the owner. The RTA includes an agent in the definition of “landlord”, where appropriate; s2 RTA.

Both the tenant and the property manager described a difficult and conflicted series of interactions over a number of months. These included the agent repeatedly requiring that the ceramic cooktop be cleaned to a higher standard than the tenants’ thought was reasonable, breach notices and re-inspections, a request by the tenants that the property managers who visited the premises remove their shoes when inside the house and a refusal by the agent company to do so on the grounds that the company’s health and safety policy required that shoes remain on.

The conflict escalated on a day in July 2023 ending with the tenant and the property manager assaulting each other.

After hearing and considering the evidence, my conclusions are:- a. A tenant is required to keep premises “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy”; section 40(1)(c) RTA. In my view, some of the cleaning requirements imposed by the agent during the tenancy went too far. For example, that light fittings, skirting boards and windowsills need cleaning, “insects on garage ceiling”, “minor marks” on wall. Also, that lawns need to be mowed, edges trimmed, and weeding done. The photographs provided show no obvious cause for concern. A landlord needs to be careful not to impose their own standards on a tenant. Generally, unless a lack of cleanliness or maintenance is likely to cause damage if not attended to, a tenant should be left to live as they choose. b. The agent was adamant that the ceramic cooktop was being damaged because cooking spills were not being cleaned properly. The photos do show marks around the element areas. In my view, these are the marks of normal use. There was no independent evidence to support a view that these marks are damage. c. I agree with the tenants that the agent breached their quiet enjoyment by issuing breach notices for the cleaning of the cooktop and re-inspecting the premises three times within 45 days. I also find a breach in listing minor cleaning and garden maintenance issues as inspection issues. d. My decision is that the agent’s decision that property managers should not remove their shoes inside the premises was reasonable in these circumstances. A tenant is entitled to ask for this as the premises are their home. However, in this case, the tenants say they were not making the request for cultural or religious reasons but as a matter of preference (as they do not wear shoes inside) and so that germs, dirt and water did not enter the house. The agent explained that it was a policy of the company to wear shoes as a property manager had once cut her foot during an inspection while not wearing shoes. e. The agent said that wet wipes are carried in vehicles so that shoes can be cleaned before entering a house. There is no evidence that dirt or wet were brought inside. f. The agent could have done better to explain the precautions taken to keep shoes clean and the reason for the policy. The tenant did not know this until in the hearing. g. The description of events from both parties and the agent’s witness (another property manager) satisfies me that both parties were at fault on the day that ended with them striking each other. This day was the result of over a year of disagreements about the cleaning issues and the shoes. h. I do not consider that the actions of the property managers are harassment. Some of the cleaning requirements were unreasonable but they were not intended to harass. Both parties could have chosen to de- escalate matters, but they did not. I see this as a mutual battle of wills.

My decisions mean that exemplary damages do not apply (there is no harassment).

In the tenant’s view, he and his wife had to move from these premises because of the agent’s unreasonable interference with their quiet enjoyment. I agree with this, in part. But the problems were exacerbated by the tenant’s responses. The ending of the relationship was caused by the clash of wills and the unreasonable expectations of cleanliness.

I award modest compensation of $250.00 for the upset and disturbance from the breach notices, re-inspections, and threat to make a Tribunal claim over the cleaning of the cooktop (from May to July 2023). This was unreasonable and unnecessarily escalated the tension between the parties.

I note that, after the assault incident, the agent issued the tenants with a notice to terminate the tenancy under section 55AA RTA on 14 days’ notice. This is not a lawful notice. That section only applies where the police have laid a formal charge against a tenant. Also, the notice must be in the approved form, attach the required evidence of the charge, and set out a tenant’s right to challenge the notice. The agent’s notice did not comply with these requirements. See s55AA RTA.

The tenant said that he and his wife would have moved anyway, and he did not raise the issue of whether the notice or action was lawful or valid under the RTA. The tenancy in fact ended after the tenants gave their own notice to vacate the premises on 8 August 2023.

These events were stressful and upsetting for both parties. They were both partly to blame. Considering this, I make no award for the filing fee and neither do I suppress the names of the participants in the hearing. I do suppress the other tenant’s name and the name of the owners.