What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4670429 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 4670429?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670429?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9545506-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4670429 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 4670429?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670429?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9545506-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 53 Frontier Road, Te Awamutu, Te Awamutu Tenancy Tribunal Case 4670429 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4670429 — net $470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$450.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$470.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$470.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Hagan Realty Limited T/A L J Hooker Te Awamutu As Agent For Jane Sinclair must pay [The tenant/s] $470.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s entry and requests for a flatmate to be vetted and included as a tenant. Landlord entry
The landlord entered the premises on two occasions for the purpose of carrying out regular inspections. The first visit was on 5 April 2023 and the second was on 5 July 2023.
The tenant’s evidence is that she did not have notice of either inspection. She said that she only learnt of the inspections when the Property Manager’s business card was left on the table on the second visit.
The landlord’s evidence is that emails were sent to the tenant in advance of both inspections followed by a text message reminder the day before the visits.
The tenant claims that she did not receive either the emails or the text messages and therefore did not receive notice as provided in the legislation. I note that the tenant had at some stage changed her telephone number which is likely to have meant she did not receive either one or both text messages.
The landlord produced copies of the emails sent to the tenant. The correct email address for the tenant is used.
On the evidence it is not established that the tenant did not receive notice of the inspections. The tenant’s claim in respect of the landlord breach in relation to entry is dismissed. Flatmate
Initially the tenant and her children moved into the tenancy. Soon after commencement of the tenancy the tenant got a flatmate.
The tenancy agreement states that the maximum number of residents and tenants (combined) to reside at the residence must not exceed four. The tenant’s position is that she was never in breach of this clause because one of her three children moved to live in Auckland prior to the flatmate moving in.
When the landlord found out about the flatmate, she insisted that he needed to be vetted and if approved he would be included as a tenant on the tenancy agreement. The landlord relied upon clause 8 under the heading “Additional terms and conditions” in the tenancy agreement which states; “Further Tenants - The Tenants agree that only occupants named on the tenancy agreement are to reside at the Property. If any persons want to reside at the Property they must submit applications and go through the full vetting process. It is only with the consent of the Landlord that any new applicant will be added to the tenancy agreement as a Tenant and be allowed to reside at the Property.
The effect of this clause is that the landlord would have to consent to any person living at the premises (after being vetted) and this would apply to any flatmates or future partners of the tenant. This clause is unreasonable and intrusive. In my view it is unenforceable and is inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (see section 11).
The tenant did not want the tenant included on the tenancy agreement and cannot be forced to agree to this.
The landlord did not accept the tenant’s position even after the tenant instructed counsel who wrote to the landlord advising that the tenant was not in breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act. That letter was dated 10 August 2023.
The landlord persisted with the position about wanting to vet the flatmate and include him as a tenant. The landlord sent an email on 11 August 2023 stating that any variation to her agreement needed to be in writing and that the tenancy agreement states the four residents are the tenant and her three children. The landlord referred to clause 8 of the tenancy agreement as mentioned above. Then a further email was sent by the landlord on 18 August 2023 asking if the flatmate was still residing there and provided forms for the flatmate to complete for the vetting process.
The tenant found this contact from the landlord to amount to harassment and a breach of her quiet enjoyment. It was the tenant’s view that she could no longer remain living at the tenancy given the harassment. She negotiated an agreement where she could give 90 days’ notice to vacate the tenancy. She gave such notice and is to leave the tenancy on 21 November 2023.
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.
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.
The landlord continued to contact the tenant about the flatmate after the tenant advised that she did not want him to be included as a tenant and after receiving a letter from a lawyer instructed by the tenant. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 contact by the landlord amounts to harassment. The effect of the landlord’s actions is that the tenant has chosen to seek to end the fixed term tenancy early due to the stress the situation has created. The tenant should be able to live without such harassment and a landlord cannot dictate who lives with a tenant if they do not exceed the maximum number of residents. Such behaviour is controlling and oppressive. It is in the public interest for tenants to be able to live without ongoing interference of their reasonable peace and privacy.
I consider that the tenant should receive an award for this breach. Given that she has had to instruct counsel, and that advice was still not accepted by the landlord, I consider that it would be reasonable to reimburse her for some of that cost. I award the tenant $450.00.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4670429 — net $470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$450.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$470.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$470.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Hagan Realty Limited T/A L J Hooker Te Awamutu As Agent For Jane Sinclair must pay [The tenant/s] $470.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s entry and requests for a flatmate to be vetted and included as a tenant. Landlord entry
The landlord entered the premises on two occasions for the purpose of carrying out regular inspections. The first visit was on 5 April 2023 and the second was on 5 July 2023.
The tenant’s evidence is that she did not have notice of either inspection. She said that she only learnt of the inspections when the Property Manager’s business card was left on the table on the second visit.
The landlord’s evidence is that emails were sent to the tenant in advance of both inspections followed by a text message reminder the day before the visits.
The tenant claims that she did not receive either the emails or the text messages and therefore did not receive notice as provided in the legislation. I note that the tenant had at some stage changed her telephone number which is likely to have meant she did not receive either one or both text messages.
The landlord produced copies of the emails sent to the tenant. The correct email address for the tenant is used.
On the evidence it is not established that the tenant did not receive notice of the inspections. The tenant’s claim in respect of the landlord breach in relation to entry is dismissed. Flatmate
Initially the tenant and her children moved into the tenancy. Soon after commencement of the tenancy the tenant got a flatmate.
The tenancy agreement states that the maximum number of residents and tenants (combined) to reside at the residence must not exceed four. The tenant’s position is that she was never in breach of this clause because one of her three children moved to live in Auckland prior to the flatmate moving in.
When the landlord found out about the flatmate, she insisted that he needed to be vetted and if approved he would be included as a tenant on the tenancy agreement. The landlord relied upon clause 8 under the heading “Additional terms and conditions” in the tenancy agreement which states; “Further Tenants - The Tenants agree that only occupants named on the tenancy agreement are to reside at the Property. If any persons want to reside at the Property they must submit applications and go through the full vetting process. It is only with the consent of the Landlord that any new applicant will be added to the tenancy agreement as a Tenant and be allowed to reside at the Property.
The effect of this clause is that the landlord would have to consent to any person living at the premises (after being vetted) and this would apply to any flatmates or future partners of the tenant. This clause is unreasonable and intrusive. In my view it is unenforceable and is inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (see section 11).
The tenant did not want the tenant included on the tenancy agreement and cannot be forced to agree to this.
The landlord did not accept the tenant’s position even after the tenant instructed counsel who wrote to the landlord advising that the tenant was not in breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act. That letter was dated 10 August 2023.
The landlord persisted with the position about wanting to vet the flatmate and include him as a tenant. The landlord sent an email on 11 August 2023 stating that any variation to her agreement needed to be in writing and that the tenancy agreement states the four residents are the tenant and her three children. The landlord referred to clause 8 of the tenancy agreement as mentioned above. Then a further email was sent by the landlord on 18 August 2023 asking if the flatmate was still residing there and provided forms for the flatmate to complete for the vetting process.
The tenant found this contact from the landlord to amount to harassment and a breach of her quiet enjoyment. It was the tenant’s view that she could no longer remain living at the tenancy given the harassment. She negotiated an agreement where she could give 90 days’ notice to vacate the tenancy. She gave such notice and is to leave the tenancy on 21 November 2023.
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.
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.
The landlord continued to contact the tenant about the flatmate after the tenant advised that she did not want him to be included as a tenant and after receiving a letter from a lawyer instructed by the tenant. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 contact by the landlord amounts to harassment. The effect of the landlord’s actions is that the tenant has chosen to seek to end the fixed term tenancy early due to the stress the situation has created. The tenant should be able to live without such harassment and a landlord cannot dictate who lives with a tenant if they do not exceed the maximum number of residents. Such behaviour is controlling and oppressive. It is in the public interest for tenants to be able to live without ongoing interference of their reasonable peace and privacy.
I consider that the tenant should receive an award for this breach. Given that she has had to instruct counsel, and that advice was still not accepted by the landlord, I consider that it would be reasonable to reimburse her for some of that cost. I award the tenant $450.00.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670429 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 53 Frontier Road, Te Awamutu, Te Awamutu

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670429 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 53 Frontier Road, Te Awamutu, Te Awamutu

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