What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4638229 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,377.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4638229?

Compensation: Compensation: Quiet en…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Gas bottle refills and…: $119.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $118.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4638229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9741997-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4638229 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,377.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4638229?

Compensation: Compensation: Quiet en…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Gas bottle refills and…: $119.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $118.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4638229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9741997-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4638229 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4638229 — net $1,377.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Gas bottle refills and travel	$119.00	Gas bottle refills and travel
Compensation: Water leak repair and travel	$118.00	Water leak repair and travel
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$120.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Compensation: Quiet enjoyment	$1,000.00	Compensation: Quiet enjoyment
Net award	$1,377.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,377.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,377.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. The sum may be offset by [The tenant/s] against rent payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented [Landlord 1] as her counsel, [Landlord 2] joined by telephone.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord interfered with his quiet enjoyment and gave improper notice to terminate. He also sought compensation for costs he has incurred.
The case conference was convened on Friday, 8 September 2023. [Landlord 2] joined by teleconference. [The landlord’s representative] represented [Landlord 1] as her counsel. This was granted per s 93(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That conference confirmed both landlords should be named in this application. [Landlord 2] was added as the second landlord.
The matter was referred to mediation with the agreement of the parties, but no mediated agreement was reached. It was therefore set down for this hearing. Background
This tenancy commenced on 15 August 2022. The premises is within a larger property that was also the home of the landlords. It is known as the “Punga unit”. No written tenancy agreement was signed. The tenancy formed via a verbal agreement between [The tenant/s] and [Landlord 2].
The personal relationship between the landlords has ended. A prior protection order was reactivated by [Landlord 1], effectively barring [Landlord 2] from the property from around March 2023. Both landlords have engaged legal counsel. The impact of that dispute extended into this tenancy.
A number of maintenance or tenancy tasks previously performed by [Landlord 2] were not attended to in a timely manner after the. [The tenant/s] is a practical person and he undertook resupply of LPG cylinders, fixed a water leak and carried out other tasks that should have been completed by the landlord. One further example was the electricity supply. [Landlord 1] had threatened to “cut off the power” after [The tenant/s] withheld rent. On 20 July 2023 [The tenant/s] put the electricity supply for the property into his name to ensure continued supply.
Things came to a head when the tenant was served a notice to quit. This notice was drafted and served on the tenant by [The landlord’s representative], on the instruction of [Landlord 1]. While the letter was dated 13 July, [The tenant/s] stated the letter was served on him by hand on 3 August 2023. I am not convinced that was the case as his application predates this date by some ten days and the application claims exemplary damages because the “Land ladies Lawyer hand delivered an unlawful notice letter to me and sent the police to my door to intimidate me.”
It is likely the 3 August 2023 was the day a physical visit to serve a trespass notice took place. On or around that day [The tenant/s] called [The landlord’s representative] and [The landlord’s representative] says that after speaking with [The tenant/s] he then realised it was a residential tenancy.
Unfortunately, if so, there was no action taken by [The landlord’s representative] to revoke this notice. Given the police involvement in the serving of the trespass notices at this time, [The tenant/s] believes this was why the police made him surrender his firearms licence. After further discussion, it appears more likely to me that the police concern leading to the removal of his firearms licence pertained to his failure to keep his registered address updated on the firearms register. He had failed to advise police of his change of address and the security of his rifles at this address was uncertain.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered where applicable. Outgoing and maintenance costs
[The tenant/s] produced invoices for the cost he incurred in resupplying LPG for the property on 24 July 2023. This included his travel costs. It was not disputed by [The landlord’s representative] or [Landlord 2] that [The tenant/s] should be compensated for the amount claimed and this is awarded.
There was also a water repair performed by [The tenant/s]. Again, this required him to purchase parts and incur travel costs on 29 June 2023. It was not disputed by [The landlord’s representative] or [Landlord 2] that [The tenant/s] should be compensated for the amount claimed and this is awarded Loss of amenity
The property had a communal laundry facility. It was locked by [Landlord 1] and for approximately eight weeks there was no access. This was eventually resolved by [Landlord 2]’s mother but in the interim [The tenant/s] had at avail himself of the nearest self-service laundry facilities. This meant he incurred further costs and he sought $120.00 compensation for what was approximately a weekly exercise. The cost appears reasonable and is awarded. Quiet enjoyment
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in this case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
From these definitions it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment.
[The tenant/s] claimed exemplary damages because of the serving on him of an unlawful notice to quit and the sending of “police to my door to intimidate me”. No compensation sum was sought.
There have already been examples in this order of where [The tenant/s] has been required to perform tasks because of the failure of the landlords.
The tenant has experienced further impacts on his quiet enjoyment due to the attempted termination of the tenancy and subsequent trespassing and visitations.
I do not find the events can be deemed harassment by the landlord, therefore no exemplary damages should be awarded.
Last year, in Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora [2022] NZDC 7003 the District Court said the Tribunal should not be too constrained by the application. Although the tenant only applied for exemplary damage for related breaches, I have considered whether to award compensation. Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
Having considered the submissions and evidence, I consider [The tenant/s] was adversely impacted by a number of failures of the landlords, beyond the compensation for costs he has actually sought returned. I make an award of compensation under this section. Having considered the circumstances and impact on [The tenant/s], I consider $1000.00 an appropriate amount of compensation. Notice to terminate
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is not unusual where two named landlords cease to operate jointly that some confusion arises over responsibilities.
The usual position where there are joint landlords or tenants, one of the joint tenants or landlords can give a unilateral notice ending the lease, and that notice becomes binding on their co-landlord or tenant.
In this instance, steps to terminate the tenancy were taken by [Landlord 1]. Such termination was not supported by [Landlord 2].
[The tenant/s] stated [Landlord 1] was “creative” in her attempts to get rid of them but beyond the notice to quit I have limited evidence of this.
The notice to quit, dated 13 July 2023 was served on all tenants. Unlike others, this agreement was verbal. I do not have compelling evidence that [Landlord 1] could be considered to have intentionally instructed [The landlord’s representative] to draft and serve the notice to quit. The lack of intent means I make no order for exemplary damages.
I make no specific compensation order for the attempt to terminate. It has been considered as part of the compensation sum awarded under quiet enjoyment above. Application filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the application I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, 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.
The tenant requested suppression in his application. As he has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.
Much of this dispute stems from the relationship breakdown between the landlords. Resolution of that is still pending in a jurisdiction where orders are not published, therefore I consider it appropriate to also suppress the landlord names in this instance. Rent payable
The application was initially made against [Landlord 1] only. [Landlord 2] was later joined to the application as the second landlord.
I consider [Landlord 1] is the landlord responsible for the majority of the orders in this decision. I have made the monetary order against both landlords as I am uncertain who received the rent during this time. Without accurate accounting of the rental income and any other related income or expense I leave both landlords named. Given the circumstances, it is appropriate the tenant can offset against rent payable. Normal rent resumes once the sum of rent offset equals the sum ordered or the debt (or any balance) is paid by the landlords. If the tenancy comes to an end prior, any remaining balance is immediately payable.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4638229 — net $1,377.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Gas bottle refills and travel	$119.00	Gas bottle refills and travel
Compensation: Water leak repair and travel	$118.00	Water leak repair and travel
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$120.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Compensation: Quiet enjoyment	$1,000.00	Compensation: Quiet enjoyment
Net award	$1,377.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,377.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,377.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. The sum may be offset by [The tenant/s] against rent payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented [Landlord 1] as her counsel, [Landlord 2] joined by telephone.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord interfered with his quiet enjoyment and gave improper notice to terminate. He also sought compensation for costs he has incurred.
The case conference was convened on Friday, 8 September 2023. [Landlord 2] joined by teleconference. [The landlord’s representative] represented [Landlord 1] as her counsel. This was granted per s 93(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That conference confirmed both landlords should be named in this application. [Landlord 2] was added as the second landlord.
The matter was referred to mediation with the agreement of the parties, but no mediated agreement was reached. It was therefore set down for this hearing. Background
This tenancy commenced on 15 August 2022. The premises is within a larger property that was also the home of the landlords. It is known as the “Punga unit”. No written tenancy agreement was signed. The tenancy formed via a verbal agreement between [The tenant/s] and [Landlord 2].
The personal relationship between the landlords has ended. A prior protection order was reactivated by [Landlord 1], effectively barring [Landlord 2] from the property from around March 2023. Both landlords have engaged legal counsel. The impact of that dispute extended into this tenancy.
A number of maintenance or tenancy tasks previously performed by [Landlord 2] were not attended to in a timely manner after the. [The tenant/s] is a practical person and he undertook resupply of LPG cylinders, fixed a water leak and carried out other tasks that should have been completed by the landlord. One further example was the electricity supply. [Landlord 1] had threatened to “cut off the power” after [The tenant/s] withheld rent. On 20 July 2023 [The tenant/s] put the electricity supply for the property into his name to ensure continued supply.
Things came to a head when the tenant was served a notice to quit. This notice was drafted and served on the tenant by [The landlord’s representative], on the instruction of [Landlord 1]. While the letter was dated 13 July, [The tenant/s] stated the letter was served on him by hand on 3 August 2023. I am not convinced that was the case as his application predates this date by some ten days and the application claims exemplary damages because the “Land ladies Lawyer hand delivered an unlawful notice letter to me and sent the police to my door to intimidate me.”
It is likely the 3 August 2023 was the day a physical visit to serve a trespass notice took place. On or around that day [The tenant/s] called [The landlord’s representative] and [The landlord’s representative] says that after speaking with [The tenant/s] he then realised it was a residential tenancy.
Unfortunately, if so, there was no action taken by [The landlord’s representative] to revoke this notice. Given the police involvement in the serving of the trespass notices at this time, [The tenant/s] believes this was why the police made him surrender his firearms licence. After further discussion, it appears more likely to me that the police concern leading to the removal of his firearms licence pertained to his failure to keep his registered address updated on the firearms register. He had failed to advise police of his change of address and the security of his rifles at this address was uncertain.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered where applicable. Outgoing and maintenance costs
[The tenant/s] produced invoices for the cost he incurred in resupplying LPG for the property on 24 July 2023. This included his travel costs. It was not disputed by [The landlord’s representative] or [Landlord 2] that [The tenant/s] should be compensated for the amount claimed and this is awarded.
There was also a water repair performed by [The tenant/s]. Again, this required him to purchase parts and incur travel costs on 29 June 2023. It was not disputed by [The landlord’s representative] or [Landlord 2] that [The tenant/s] should be compensated for the amount claimed and this is awarded Loss of amenity
The property had a communal laundry facility. It was locked by [Landlord 1] and for approximately eight weeks there was no access. This was eventually resolved by [Landlord 2]’s mother but in the interim [The tenant/s] had at avail himself of the nearest self-service laundry facilities. This meant he incurred further costs and he sought $120.00 compensation for what was approximately a weekly exercise. The cost appears reasonable and is awarded. Quiet enjoyment
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in this case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
From these definitions it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment.
[The tenant/s] claimed exemplary damages because of the serving on him of an unlawful notice to quit and the sending of “police to my door to intimidate me”. No compensation sum was sought.
There have already been examples in this order of where [The tenant/s] has been required to perform tasks because of the failure of the landlords.
The tenant has experienced further impacts on his quiet enjoyment due to the attempted termination of the tenancy and subsequent trespassing and visitations.
I do not find the events can be deemed harassment by the landlord, therefore no exemplary damages should be awarded.
Last year, in Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora [2022] NZDC 7003 the District Court said the Tribunal should not be too constrained by the application. Although the tenant only applied for exemplary damage for related breaches, I have considered whether to award compensation. Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
Having considered the submissions and evidence, I consider [The tenant/s] was adversely impacted by a number of failures of the landlords, beyond the compensation for costs he has actually sought returned. I make an award of compensation under this section. Having considered the circumstances and impact on [The tenant/s], I consider $1000.00 an appropriate amount of compensation. Notice to terminate
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is not unusual where two named landlords cease to operate jointly that some confusion arises over responsibilities.
The usual position where there are joint landlords or tenants, one of the joint tenants or landlords can give a unilateral notice ending the lease, and that notice becomes binding on their co-landlord or tenant.
In this instance, steps to terminate the tenancy were taken by [Landlord 1]. Such termination was not supported by [Landlord 2].
[The tenant/s] stated [Landlord 1] was “creative” in her attempts to get rid of them but beyond the notice to quit I have limited evidence of this.
The notice to quit, dated 13 July 2023 was served on all tenants. Unlike others, this agreement was verbal. I do not have compelling evidence that [Landlord 1] could be considered to have intentionally instructed [The landlord’s representative] to draft and serve the notice to quit. The lack of intent means I make no order for exemplary damages.
I make no specific compensation order for the attempt to terminate. It has been considered as part of the compensation sum awarded under quiet enjoyment above. Application filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the application I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, 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.
The tenant requested suppression in his application. As he has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.
Much of this dispute stems from the relationship breakdown between the landlords. Resolution of that is still pending in a jurisdiction where orders are not published, therefore I consider it appropriate to also suppress the landlord names in this instance. Rent payable
The application was initially made against [Landlord 1] only. [Landlord 2] was later joined to the application as the second landlord.
I consider [Landlord 1] is the landlord responsible for the majority of the orders in this decision. I have made the monetary order against both landlords as I am uncertain who received the rent during this time. Without accurate accounting of the rental income and any other related income or expense I leave both landlords named. Given the circumstances, it is appropriate the tenant can offset against rent payable. Normal rent resumes once the sum of rent offset equals the sum ordered or the debt (or any balance) is paid by the landlords. If the tenancy comes to an end prior, any remaining balance is immediately payable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4638229 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4638229 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions