What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650070 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4650070?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650070?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9491931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650070 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4650070?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650070?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9491931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 20 Wiremu Street, Redwood, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4650070 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650070 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$750.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. Background:

The tenant has resided at the address since 1995.

The premises consist of 4 two-level flats with a shared driveway. The tenant resides in the flat on the lefthand side of the property and the neighbour on the right. The tenant has two allocated carparks for her flat.

Various disputes have arisen with the neighbouring tenant. The neighbour resides in the neighbouring flat with her son. The bulk of these disputes have their genesis in issues relating to parking. Tenant’s application:

The tenant states that the neighbour has resided in the complex for approximately two years. The relationship has been fraught with tension from the beginning.

The tenant filed a number of documents in support of her application. These included copies of text messages and photographs. During the hearing the tenant also provided video evidence in support.

The tenant’s text messages are complaints to the landlord relating to the neighbour’s behaviour. These messages include: “I question why KO is allowing this to continuously happen along with this neighbour verbally abusing our friends or even contractors that attend our house (...) running around trying to provoke us and our visitors verbally abusing us and visitors. Could you please advise if KO has already applied notice to 1/20 to stop harassing us and our visitors, how long we will have to endure this antisocial behaviour that continues to breach our peace quiet and enjoyment” “After speaking to police today they advised me that under the RTA it is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure that no other tenants are breaching the peace quiet and enjoyment (...) please advise if KO will address this issue” “Could you please update me on what Kainga Ora is doing re unsociable neighbours and its outcome?” “As this was already advised to us 3 weeks ago we can only assume that KO has done nothing with this issue over the last 3 weeks (...). Please advise on when KO intends to make a decision about the unsociable behaviour from flat 1 including the outcome, please note information was requested and as yet not supplied by KO”

The tenant also provided an email from the office of Gerry Brownlee MP. This email was in response to a complaint made by the tenant. The email was as follows: “just an update – I finally have got an answer this morning after three emails chasing up my enquiry. I am told your team leader is on holiday and the manager will respond to me next week. I have replied that may be some of the problem!”

The tenant also provided evidence of complaints made to the police. I have sighted evidence of complaints made on 3 separate occasions, dated 26 February 2023, 14 April 2023 and 4 July 2023. One of these occasions resulted in the arrest of the neighbour’s son for wilful damage.

The tenant’s application also included video evidence. Two videos were shown to the Tribunal during the hearing. The video evidence confirms what can only be described as appalling behaviour on the part of the neighbour and her son. The language is foul and the abuse palpable and all directed at the tenant. On one occasion the neighbour’s son comes over to the tenant and kicks her fence while yelling obscenities. There has also been abuse directed at the tenant’s visitors, including a mobile vet nurse.

The tenant says that the abuse continues. As recently as “36 hours ago” the neighbour came out while the tenant was clearing her letterbox and verbally abused her. Landlord’s response:

The landlord says that there are two sides to every story. They also say that neighbours are scared of the tenant.

The landlord stated that in their opinion the tenant exacerbates the situation with the neighbour by taking videos and photographs of them. The landlord provided a timeline of events during the hearing to help explain what action they had taken in response to these issues. They also gave oral evidence that they have spoken to the neighbour more than once regarding their behaviour.

The actions by the landlord included discussions with the team leader, speaking with the parties on a number of occasions and facilitating the service of trespass notices on the parties.

The landlord accepted during the hearing that the behaviour of the neighbour was unacceptable. The landlord says that they have taken all reasonable steps to resolve issues. Did the landlord cause or permit any reasonable interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises?

Having considered the evidence from both parties it is clear to me that the landlord did not cause or permit any reasonable interference with the peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.

As a result of my findings exemplary damages are not available to the tenant under section 38(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act. Did the landlord take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants caused or permitted any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises?

Section 45 (1) (e) Residential Tenancies Act provides that the landlord shall “take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises”.

The tribunal has generally applied a 3-stage analysis to applications brought under section 45 (1) (e) RTA. First, has there been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises? Secondly, has the interference been caused or permitted by another tenant of the landlord? Where the answer is yes to the above two questions, has the landlord taken all reasonable steps to ensure the interference did not or does not continue?

There is strong evidence to answer the first two questions in the affirmative. I am satisfied after carefully considering all the evidence, in particular the video evidence against the neighbouring tenant, that there has been a substantial interference with the tenant’s peace comfort and privacy.

The words “permit” includes “turning a blind eye to the obvious or not taking any reasonable steps to prevent”. I am satisfied that the neighbouring tenant not only caused an interference by her own conduct but also permitted her family to cause an interference with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants in the building.

Under the law the landlord has a positive obligation to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure none of their other tenants cause or permit an interference with the peace comfort or privacy of other tenants. I make the following observations regarding the landlord’s responsibilities under section 45 (1) (e) RTA: a. First, I note that section requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to prevent the interference; b. Second, what might be considered a “reasonable step” must be assessed in relation to the given set of circumstances. A landlord may respond in a different manner depending on the nature of the complaint, for example a complaint about isolated case of noise will likely be dealt with quite differently to a complaint involving allegations of criminal conduct. The nature, extent and impact of the tenant’s breach will become crucial in any analysis of “reasonable steps” taken by the landlord; c. Third, the concept of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises is a fundamental requirement under tenancy law. It involves the right to live and enjoy the premises in peace and without reasonable disturbance. Premises extends to non-exclusive areas such as shared lawns, gardens and parking areas. Under the law tenants have the right to quiet enjoyment but they also have a responsibility to ensure their behaviour and the behaviour of their visitors do not interfere with their neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Quiet enjoyment under the law is qualified by the concept of reasonableness. This may mean that some potentially unpleasant disputes or differences of opinion between tenants or a personality conflict with your neighbour will unlikely qualify as an infringement of reasonable quiet enjoyment.

I have carefully read all the evidence including the emails, text messages and submissions by the parties.

The landlord argues that they took a number of reasonable steps to “manage the situation” at the complex. As noted above these steps included discussions with the parties, discussions with the team leader to talk about the issues and assisting with the service of trespass notices. It is unclear how many meetings were held. There were no minutes of meetings or any statements from the tenancy manager provided by the landlord.

Whilst many of the steps cited by the landlord were reasonable in the first instance, I have reached the view that further action needed to take place when it had become apparent that these measures were inadequate to curb the ongoing intimidating and disruptive behaviour of the neighbour and her son.

I am satisfied a persistent pattern of disruptive and offensive behaviour by the neighbouring tenant had emerged at the building complex. The end result was an intimidating and unsafe environment for the other tenants. Overall, I would place the interference at the upper end of the spectrum in terms of severity and impact on this tenant.

Urgent action by the landlord was, and still is, warranted at this stage to meet their statutory responsibilities under section 45(1)(e) RTA beyond previously taken steps. I find that the landlord should have explored the option of terminating the neighbour’s tenancy or re-housing her to fulfil their statutory duty to other tenants in the complex. It is my view that this needs to happen before something far more serious takes place.

I accept the evidence from the tenant. It is plainly obvious from the evidence presented that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to protect the interests of the tenant.

Having sighted the evidence as presented by the tenant I am satisfied that the landlord has failed in their obligations in this regard. I award compensation to the tenant to reflect this.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

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.

I consider it in the public interest that the tenant’s name is suppressed and is ordered accordingly.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650070 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$750.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.44