How much money was awarded in case 4642553?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642553?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9742621-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4642553?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642553?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9742621-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1015, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4642553 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4642553 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around the publication of this decision.
Mr Pirihi’s request for an adjournment of today’s hearing is denied.
[The tenant/s] must allow Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities access for the purpose of purposes of testing for the presence of methamphetamine or taking samples for testing for the presence of methamphetamine.
Access is granted for this purpose on 19 December 2023 at 11am.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The tenant called the call centre at 11:17am to advise that he is stuck in the Bay of Islands with a broken-down car and is therefore unable to make it to Auckland on time for the 11:30am hearing today. Further Mr Pirihi is urgently requesting an adjournment of the hearing but is aware that it may proceed in his absence. He provided his mobile number and stated he could be contacted on it in relation to the hearing.
The registrar called him just prior to the hearing starting to request that he attend the hearing by telephone. The reception on the call was good, with both parties being able to hear each other clearly. Mr Pirihi stated that he had just broken down on the back road out of Russell, was waiting for his whanau to come to rescue him and had walked back up the road to answer the call from the Tribunal. When I tried to ask him if he could attend the hearing by phone or give us the reasons why he was continuing to refuse entry into the premises for the purposes of testing for methamphetamine he was rude, talked over me and told me he had 5 percent phone battery and was going to terminate the call to preserve the battery so he could talk to his whanau to let them know where he was located. I informed him that the hearing was going to go ahead in his absence as he was being given the opportunity to inform me why he has continued to refuse his landlord entry to the premises after them having issued him with three valid notices and having obtained a prior order from the Tribunal. He told me he didn’t have to speak to me and if I did not adjourn the hearing he would file for a rehearing. He then hung up on me.
Two registrars tried to call him again, on the phone number he provided, both from different numbers, and he did not answer either of these calls.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities have issued Mr Pirihi with three valid notices, on 3 April 2023, 16 June 2023 and 25 July 2023, requiring access to the property for the purposes of testing for the presence of methamphetamine. I have sighted the notices which were issued after a drug detector dog conducted routine body corporate inspections under the door of all the units in the block. The drug detector dog indicated that there was methamphetamine present in unit 1015, in which Mr Pirihi has resided since23 September 2013.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities state the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter after the giving of three valid notices.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities applied to the Tribunal for an order “granting them access to the tenant’s premises for the purposes of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking such samples for testing”. The order was granted by the Tribunal on 28 September 2023 for Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities to access the premises for this purpose on 6 October at 11am. Mr Pirihi did not attend this hearing and applied for a hearing and a stay of the 28 September 2023 order.
on 7 October 2023, Mr Pirihi’s rehearing application was granted on the papers, as was the stay of proceedings in respect to the 28 September 2023 testing order. The basis of this decision was that a potential miscarriage of justice had occurred as Mr Pirihi had not received notice of the hearing until after the hearing date and him not having been given the opportunity to present his concerns regarding Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities not having provided him with the pre-test results for apartment 1015 prior to him having moved into it.
A new hearing was set down for 14 November 2023 at Auckland District Court but was moved to Manukau District Court for administrative reasons. Mr Pirihi stated that he could not attend the hearing, as he could not get to Manukau District Court, and the matter was adjourned to be set down for an urgent hearing in December 2023.
Mr Pirihi had plenty of notice of the hearing set down for today and ample opportunity to submit any evidence he wanted the Tribunal to consider. He has not done so. He was given the opportunity to attend the hearing by phone today or to give a response as to why he was continuing to refuse his landlord entry to his apartment for the purposes of testing for the presence of methamphetamine or taking samples for testing for the presence of methamphetamine. He refused to do so and has continued to use the legal processes to stave off having his premises tested for the presence of methamphetamine when the landlord has reasonable suspicion that he has had this substance in the apartment at some stage prior to the early 2023 drug detection dog body corporate routine inspection. No drug dog alerts have been made on this apartment prior to the March 2023 routine annual body corporate inspection. Mr Pirihi has lived at the property since September 2013. Therefore, the drug dog alert that led to the landlord’s reasonable request to test the apartment could not be said to have been because of the premises having been contaminated by methamphetamine prior to his 2013 tenancy.
Mr Pirihi had sufficient notice of today’s hearing not to have been near Russell at 11:17am this morning, when he alleged, he was on the side of the road waiting for his whanau to pick him up as his car had just broken down. It was clear that he had no intention of attending the hearing today and was attempting to continue his abuse of Court processes to allow him to continue to deny his landlord access to the apartment for the purposes of testing.
It would not be just to grant Mr Pirihi his late application for an adjournment of todays hearing and that application is denied because: a. Mr Pirihi’s intention he intent for requesting a late adjournment, after 8 months of the landlord trying to get access to the apartment to test for methamphetamine, is to cause a further delay in the landlord being able to conduct those tests. Given the time of the year it would be February 2024 before another hearing would be set down and it is likely Mr Pirihi would continue to abuse the adjournment and rehearing process; b. The effect of Mr Pirihi’s continual refusal to grant access to his landlord for the purposes of testing for methamphetamine is that the landlord is in a position of not knowing whether Mr Pirihi has been using or manufacturing methamphetamine in the apartment or whether he has guests that have been using or manufacturing methamphetamine in the apartment and whether the apartment has been contaminated and to what degree it has been contaminated and whether there is any risk to any of the tenants around Mr Pirihi’s apartment. c. It is in the interests of the landlord against whom Mr Pirhi continues to commit the unlawful act of not allowing his landlord access to the apartment to conduct the testing when it has repeatedly had the lawful right to do so; and d. It is not in the public interest to allow a tenant to abuse the rehearing and adjournment processes to allow his to continue to commit the unlawful act of not allowing his landlord lawful entry to his apartment for the purpose of testing for an illegal substance that could potentially be causing harm to him potentially living in contaminated premises that could negatively impact his health and those in the adjacent apartments and could be causing damage to the apartment.
Mr Pirihi has intentionally committed an unlawful act by refusing lawful access to his apartment for 8 months despite having been issued 3 notices from the landlord and having a Tribunal order granting it access on 6 October 2023.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord does not seek exemplary damages for Mr Pirihi’s unlawful acts, and I make no order in this respect.
The landlord does not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around the publication of this decision.

Mr Pirihi’s request for an adjournment of today’s hearing is denied.

[The tenant/s] must allow Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities access for the purpose of purposes of testing for the presence of methamphetamine or taking samples for testing for the presence of methamphetamine.

Access is granted for this purpose on 19 December 2023 at 11am.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.

The tenant called the call centre at 11:17am to advise that he is stuck in the Bay of Islands with a broken-down car and is therefore unable to make it to Auckland on time for the 11:30am hearing today. Further Mr Pirihi is urgently requesting an adjournment of the hearing but is aware that it may proceed in his absence. He provided his mobile number and stated he could be contacted on it in relation to the hearing.

The registrar called him just prior to the hearing starting to request that he attend the hearing by telephone. The reception on the call was good, with both parties being able to hear each other clearly. Mr Pirihi stated that he had just broken down on the back road out of Russell, was waiting for his whanau to come to rescue him and had walked back up the road to answer the call from the Tribunal. When I tried to ask him if he could attend the hearing by phone or give us the reasons why he was continuing to refuse entry into the premises for the purposes of testing for methamphetamine he was rude, talked over me and told me he had 5 percent phone battery and was going to terminate the call to preserve the battery so he could talk to his whanau to let them know where he was located. I informed him that the hearing was going to go ahead in his absence as he was being given the opportunity to inform me why he has continued to refuse his landlord entry to the premises after them having issued him with three valid notices and having obtained a prior order from the Tribunal. He told me he didn’t have to speak to me and if I did not adjourn the hearing he would file for a rehearing. He then hung up on me.

Two registrars tried to call him again, on the phone number he provided, both from different numbers, and he did not answer either of these calls.

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities have issued Mr Pirihi with three valid notices, on 3 April 2023, 16 June 2023 and 25 July 2023, requiring access to the property for the purposes of testing for the presence of methamphetamine. I have sighted the notices which were issued after a drug detector dog conducted routine body corporate inspections under the door of all the units in the block. The drug detector dog indicated that there was methamphetamine present in unit 1015, in which Mr Pirihi has resided since23 September 2013.

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities state the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter after the giving of three valid notices.

A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities applied to the Tribunal for an order “granting them access to the tenant’s premises for the purposes of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking such samples for testing”. The order was granted by the Tribunal on 28 September 2023 for Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities to access the premises for this purpose on 6 October at 11am. Mr Pirihi did not attend this hearing and applied for a hearing and a stay of the 28 September 2023 order.

on 7 October 2023, Mr Pirihi’s rehearing application was granted on the papers, as was the stay of proceedings in respect to the 28 September 2023 testing order. The basis of this decision was that a potential miscarriage of justice had occurred as Mr Pirihi had not received notice of the hearing until after the hearing date and him not having been given the opportunity to present his concerns regarding Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities not having provided him with the pre-test results for apartment 1015 prior to him having moved into it.

A new hearing was set down for 14 November 2023 at Auckland District Court but was moved to Manukau District Court for administrative reasons. Mr Pirihi stated that he could not attend the hearing, as he could not get to Manukau District Court, and the matter was adjourned to be set down for an urgent hearing in December 2023.

Mr Pirihi had plenty of notice of the hearing set down for today and ample opportunity to submit any evidence he wanted the Tribunal to consider. He has not done so. He was given the opportunity to attend the hearing by phone today or to give a response as to why he was continuing to refuse his landlord entry to his apartment for the purposes of testing for the presence of methamphetamine or taking samples for testing for the presence of methamphetamine. He refused to do so and has continued to use the legal processes to stave off having his premises tested for the presence of methamphetamine when the landlord has reasonable suspicion that he has had this substance in the apartment at some stage prior to the early 2023 drug detection dog body corporate routine inspection. No drug dog alerts have been made on this apartment prior to the March 2023 routine annual body corporate inspection. Mr Pirihi has lived at the property since September 2013. Therefore, the drug dog alert that led to the landlord’s reasonable request to test the apartment could not be said to have been because of the premises having been contaminated by methamphetamine prior to his 2013 tenancy.

Mr Pirihi had sufficient notice of today’s hearing not to have been near Russell at 11:17am this morning, when he alleged, he was on the side of the road waiting for his whanau to pick him up as his car had just broken down. It was clear that he had no intention of attending the hearing today and was attempting to continue his abuse of Court processes to allow him to continue to deny his landlord access to the apartment for the purposes of testing.

It would not be just to grant Mr Pirihi his late application for an adjournment of todays hearing and that application is denied because: a. Mr Pirihi’s intention he intent for requesting a late adjournment, after 8 months of the landlord trying to get access to the apartment to test for methamphetamine, is to cause a further delay in the landlord being able to conduct those tests. Given the time of the year it would be February 2024 before another hearing would be set down and it is likely Mr Pirihi would continue to abuse the adjournment and rehearing process; b. The effect of Mr Pirihi’s continual refusal to grant access to his landlord for the purposes of testing for methamphetamine is that the landlord is in a position of not knowing whether Mr Pirihi has been using or manufacturing methamphetamine in the apartment or whether he has guests that have been using or manufacturing methamphetamine in the apartment and whether the apartment has been contaminated and to what degree it has been contaminated and whether there is any risk to any of the tenants around Mr Pirihi’s apartment. c. It is in the interests of the landlord against whom Mr Pirhi continues to commit the unlawful act of not allowing his landlord access to the apartment to conduct the testing when it has repeatedly had the lawful right to do so; and d. It is not in the public interest to allow a tenant to abuse the rehearing and adjournment processes to allow his to continue to commit the unlawful act of not allowing his landlord lawful entry to his apartment for the purpose of testing for an illegal substance that could potentially be causing harm to him potentially living in contaminated premises that could negatively impact his health and those in the adjacent apartments and could be causing damage to the apartment.

Mr Pirihi has intentionally committed an unlawful act by refusing lawful access to his apartment for 8 months despite having been issued 3 notices from the landlord and having a Tribunal order granting it access on 6 October 2023.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord does not seek exemplary damages for Mr Pirihi’s unlawful acts, and I make no order in this respect.

The landlord does not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642553 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1015, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642553 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1015, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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