What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680149 about?

The tribunal order states: Kevin Desmond Wragge must pay [The tenant/s] $3,270.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4680149?

Compensation: Ants Infestation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Bathroom Door: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water Leak: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680149?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10491062-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680149 about?

The tribunal order states: Kevin Desmond Wragge must pay [The tenant/s] $3,270.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4680149?

Compensation: Ants Infestation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Bathroom Door: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water Leak: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680149?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10491062-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Sunnyvale Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4680149 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680149 — net $3,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Ants infestation	$500.00	Ants infestation
Compensation: Bathroom door	$750.00	Bathroom door
Compensation: Water leak	$500.00	Water leak
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,270.44
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,270.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680149 — net $3,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Ants infestation	$500.00	Ants infestation
Compensation: Bathroom door	$750.00	Bathroom door
Compensation: Water leak	$500.00	Water leak
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,270.44
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,270.44

Order

Kevin Desmond Wragge must pay [The tenant/s] $3,270.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation: Ants infestation $500.00 Compensation: Bathroom door $750.00 Compensation: Water leak $500.00 Exemplary damages $1,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $3,270.44 Bond $3,440.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,270.44

Reasons

The hearing was held on 18 June 2024.
All tenants attended the hearing except [Tenant 1] who had recently immigrated to the UK. I was told [Tenant 1] was not likely to return to New Zealand in the foreseeable future.
The hearing lasted the whole day. Because [Tenant 2] had a work commitment in the afternoon, he was excused from attending the afternoon hearing.
[Tenant 3] and [Tenant 4]attended the hearing the whole day. [Tenant 4] was the nominated person who addressed me mostly. [Tenant 3] addressed me towards the end of the hearing. Nothing material came from his submissions.
The landlord, Mr Wragge, attended the hearing and addressed me.
Mr Wragge did not file any application for counterclaims. The hearing was about the tenants’ complaints against Mr Wragge.
[Tenant 4] summarised the tenants' claims as: "So effectively, our application is within two to three parts versus for the refund of our bond. The second is for compensation related to failure. Failures coming from the healthy home standards, maintenance and conduct both during and at the end of the tenancy. And thirdly, the cumulative effect these issues are posed, which we believe give rise to exemplary damages."
For ease of reading this judgment, I break down the claims [Tenant 4] raised. a. The tenants are seeking a full refund of the bond. b. The tenants claim that Mr. Wragge did not comply with section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act ("RTA") because: i. Ants were everywhere in the house, entering through the shower cover plate. c. "The tenants also claim that Mr. Wragge did not comply with section 45(1)(b) of the RTA because...”: i. Mr. Wragge did not maintain the gas hob in a reasonable state of repair, considering the age and character of the premises. ii. Additionally, considering the age and character of the premises, the bathroom door was not kept in a reasonable state of repair. iii. Furthermore, considering the age and character of the premises, the property was not kept in a reasonable state of repair, as the house would leak during heavy rainfall. d. [Tenant 4] alleged that the house was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards ("HHS") because.: i. The house was damp due to a leak in the hallway/common area if rainfall was heavy. ii. The house was draughty. e. The tenants also claim that Mr. Wragge's behaviour during the tenancy breached their right to quiet enjoyment under section 38 RTA.
I turn now to each of the claims. Standard of proof
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. The tenants are seeking a full refund of the bond.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. (emphasis mine)
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
This does not mean Mr Wragge cannot file an application for compensation if he has evidence that the tenants damaged the premises. It is for Mr Wragge to decide whether to file an application against the tenants with the Tribunal. Did Mr. Wragge fail to comply with section 45 RTA?
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Ants everywhere [Tenant 4] submissions
He showed photos of ants in the kitchen oven, countertops, bedrooms, bed sheets, and bathroom shower. According to him, the ants were widespread throughout the household and not just limited to the kitchen.
He mentioned that the loose shower cover plate served as an entry point for the ants to enter the bathroom and showed video evidence of ants crawling in the shower cubicle. Additionally, he noted that the ants seemed to be coming up through the floorboards in the bedrooms and inside the bathroom walls.
He strongly denied the claim that the infestation was due to poor hygiene or food being left out, stating that they only kept food in the kitchen area. He mentioned that despite consistently using ant bait killers, the ants would go away for a week and then return.
He also pointed out that other neighbours in the Green Lane area had similar ant issues. A group of young girls renting nearby also had an ant exterminator provided by their property manager.
He showed me evidence of ants crawling on [Tenant 1] bed, emphasising that ants were in the bed throughout the night, making them uncomfortable. He also showed another piece of evidence of ants on the floor, highlighting that it was still an issue despite using ant bait killers. Mr Wragge’s submissions
He claimed that every home has ants, and it is an environmental issue that he is not responsible for. He said ants are attracted to homes by food or water sources, implying that the infestation was caused by the tenants leaving food or water sources out.
He questioned rhetorically why ants would be in the beds unless the tenants were eating food in their beds, attracting the ants there.
He arranged for the tenants to get an exterminator quote, which was around $400. He told them he would contribute $100 if the problem existed at the end of the tenancy. However, when he inspected the property himself, he claimed he could only find two ants on the back of the laundry tub. He implied that the number of ants shown in the tenants' photos was negligible and not indicative of a major infestation, using words like "spawning" to suggest they overblew the issue.
He suggested that the tenants become "impressionable" by talking to other tenants about getting exterminators and then expecting the same unnecessary treatment.
He relied on information from internet searches, stating that ants surface for food or water in dry areas, implying their presence was due to the tenants' living habits.
He maintained that the low volume of ants was negligible and that it was an environmental issue that happens in all homes, not caused by any lack of maintenance or cleanliness issues with the property itself. My view
I do not accept [Tenant 4’s] submission that other neighbours in the Green Lane area had similar ant issues and that, therefore, his premises must have ant issues. [Tenant 4’s] submissions on this point are hearsay and without evidence.
The remaining evidence strongly supports the presence of ants in the house. However, the extent of the infestation is not clear. [Tenant 4’s] evidence is that despite consistently using ant bait killers, the ants would go away for a week and then return. This piece of evidence suggests that the problem is a permanent issue unless and until Mr Wragge instructs a pest controller to address the issue.
In my view, Mr. Wragge downplayed the extent of the ant problem by suggesting it was a minor environmental issue caused by the tenants' living habits and food or water sources, not indicative of any failure on his part as the landlord.
I find Mr Wragge has committed an unlawful act. Gas hob [Tenant 4’s] submissions
He said that they informed Mr. Wragge 4 days after moving in that some elements of the gas hob were not working properly. He claimed that throughout the entire 14-month tenancy, the back right element was the only one that consistently worked.
He stated that the front two elements would either not turn on at all or produce a very weak flame, insufficient for cooking.
Despite raising the issue multiple times, Mr. Wragge never remedied the hob issue during the tenancy. He provided an email in which Mr. Wragge acknowledged the issue early on but stated that it was still usable with alternatives like portable elements.
In summary, [Tenant 4] claimed that multiple hob elements did not work properly and required alternative cooking facilities. Mr. Wragge's submissions
He mentioned that there were no problems with the hob when the previous or current tenants lived there.
He said that when the issue was first brought up, he cleaned out the hob jets, thinking it might be a blockage problem.
He mentioned that the tenant, [Tenant 1], had said they did not use the hob much and had other cooking options like a frying pan and rice cooker.
He stated that the hob was fairly new and had been installed correctly by a gas fitter. He questioned the actual impact on their tenancy if they had other cooking facilities available.
He implied that the issue only came up again as the tenancy was ending, to counteract concerns he had raised about the property's condition.
In summary, Mr. Wragge said it was a relatively minor issue that was still usable and was exaggerated toward the end of the tenancy. My view
I am unable to assess whether the landlord failed to keep the gas hob in a reasonable state of repair because I have no clear evidence. All I have are verbal statements.
I acknowledge that [Tenant 4] provided information about the condition of the gas hob in his oral submissions. Additionally, Mr. Wragge admitted to cleaning out the hob jets to fix a potential blockage issue. However, it is not clear to me that the tenants resorted to using other facilities because the gas hob was not functioning properly, and Mr. Wragge did not adequately maintain it or for some other reasons.
Since there is no objective evidence, such as evidence from a gas hob expert, I am not satisfied that [Tenant 4] has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Wragge failed to maintain the gas hob in a reasonable state of repair.
Accordingly, [Tenant 4] claim under this heading is dismissed. Bathroom door [Tenant 4’s] submissions
The bathroom door was on tracks, but it had come off the tracks and was resting on the runner. As a result, it was hard to open or close the door, and they could not lock it at all during the entire tenancy. Their privacy is violated because they are unable to lock the bathroom door.
The door handle on the inside had come off early in the tenancy because of the difficulty operating the door.
They provided a screenshot from a previous tenant stating the bathroom door was really hard to open or close, indicating it was a pre-existing issue.
Mr. Wragge had someone temporarily fix it, but it became an issue again later. Mr Wragge’s submissions
He claimed that the tenants "just ripped the thing aside, pulled off the door handle, just ripped it aside," causing the damage. He stated that there were two sliding bathroom doors in the house that were "exactly the same," but the tenants had no problems with the second door.
He questioned the privacy issue, given that there were four male tenants.
He maintained that he attempted to repair the damage they caused, he repaired but they ripped it aside again. He suggested that they caused the problem and questioned why he should be responsible for them ripping a handle off. (emphasis mine)
He also implied that the current tenant after them has had no issue with the bathroom doors. My view
I acknowledge there was a legitimate maintenance issue with the bathroom door based on the submissions by both parties and photo evidence provided by the tenants about it being hard to operate and coming off the tracks.
I asked Mr. Wragge whether there was a pre-tenancy inspection report that could have documented the bathroom door's condition before the tenants moved in. Mr Wragge told me there was no pre-tenancy inspection report.
In my view, it was wrong to blame his tenants for causing the damage because there was no evidence to suggest the tenants did so. Nor was there evidence to support that the bathroom door was in satisfactory order at the commencement of the tenancy.
If the tenants intentionally damaged the bathroom door by "just ripping the thing aside, pulling off the door handle, just ripping it aside," Mr. Wragge could file an application with the Tribunal for compensation. Until then, Mr. Wragge is responsible for the maintenance.
I am satisfied [Tenant 4] has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Wragge failed to maintain the bathroom door in a reasonable state of repair.
I find Mr Wragge has committed an unlawful act. Water leak issue [Tenant 4’s] submissions
He said the water leak had been occurring in the hallway/common areas of the residence.
He provided videos from 19 November 2022 showing significant downpours of water leaking into the hallway during heavy rain. He said these leaks happened roughly 5-6 times throughout the tenancy, roughly once every 2 months.
For the leak on 19 November 2022, they had to use pots, pans, and even a kid's sand pit to collect the overflowing water.
He claimed the leak lasted over an hour that day, and in the following days, the ceiling looked swollen from all the water.
He stated it created a damp environment conducive to getting sick, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The two other occasions [Tenant 4] identified were (no video available): a. 21 March 2022; and b. During Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023.
He strongly disagreed with Mr. Wragge that it was just an "odd leak" that was impossible to remedy due to the home's design. Mr Wragge’s submissions
He acknowledged a leak due to the design constraints of the internal gutter on the villa-style roof. He said the house was built in the 1900s.
He stated that the possibility of a leak was already known, and an exemption was included in the Healthy Homes statement based on advice from Tenancy Services. He relied on the exemption mentioned that it was just the "odd leak" down the passage that required placing buckets.
He maintained that the leak did not cause mould, damage to the carpet/ceiling, or impact any rooms but only caused overflow in the passageway.
He said that no information was given about a significant leak on 19 November 2022, which could potentially be used to make an insurance claim.
He argued that the duration of the leak depended on the weather, and eventually, it would stop dripping once the rain ceased.
He stated that the leak was impossible to permanently remedy due to the home's 1900s design and new roof.
In summary, Mr. Wragge acknowledged leakage but downplayed its severity and argued it was impossible to fix due to the home's design fully. My view
I do not accept Mr. Wragge’s argument that, due to the home's design in the 1900s, it was impossible to fix the water leak fully. I also do not accept Mr. Wragge’s argument that he relied on the exemption mentioned, stating that it was just the "odd leak" down the passage that required placing buckets. Mr. Wragge did not cite any legislative authority to support his argument that “odd leak[s]” were allowed in a rental property.
Mr. Wragge's understanding of the law is incorrect because section 45(3) RTA states that section 45(1) shall apply notwithstanding that the tenant has notice of the state of the premises at the time at which the tenancy agreement is entered into. In other words, it is no defense to say "I have informed my tenants of the potential 'odd leak' because nothing can be done."
It is Mr. Wragge’s responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, but Mr. Wragge failed to do so.
I find that Mr. Wragge committed an unlawful act by not maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair to stop water leaks during heavy rainfall. Compensation
I consider $500 compensation appropriate for ants in the house that Mr Wragge could and should have instructed a pest control expert to eradicate. I awarded no more than $500 because the tenants did not specifically prove the damage caused by ants in the house. The $500 is to acknowledge that I accept ants were in the house throughout the tenancy and that Mr Wragge did not address the issue.
I consider $750 compensation appropriate for the bathroom door that Mr Wragge could and should have instructed someone to address the complaint. [Tenant 4] did not suggest that the bathroom door was out of action. [Tenant 4] said the condition of the bathroom door made it difficult for the users to use it and to fully close it. [Tenant 4] said “... it was hard to open/close the door and they couldn't lock it at all during the entire tenancy. Accordingly, I acknowledge the breach of privacy and inconvenience.
I consider $500 compensation appropriate for Mr. Wragge's failure to address a known water leak. The tenants had to use pots, pans, and even a child's sand pit to contain the overflowing water on 19 November 2022. If the rainfall was heavy, the tenants had to be prepared to contain the overflowing water. This meant that the tenants had to be on standby and ready if heavy rainfall occurred. Although I understand that water leaks do not occur frequently, it is still unacceptable for Mr Wragge to neglect to fix the leak. I want to emphasise that if the tenants had been able to provide more detailed evidence of the damage, I would have considered awarding higher compensation. Exemplary damage
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.
In the present case, I consider $1,500 exemplary damage appropriate for the following reasons: a. Mr Wragge was aware that there were ants in the house, the bathroom door was not functioning well, and there was an odd leak if rainfall was heavy. b. However, he argued that it was his tenants’ fault for the ant problem and the malfunctioning bathroom door and expected them to address the water leak with buckets. He also dismissed any concerns about privacy since the tenants were males. c. Mr Wragge’s attitude towards his responsibilities as a landlord is unsatisfactory, and it is justified to award exemplary damages. Dampness and draughty issues
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard and the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The two issues raised here are intertwined. I will address them both here.
I want to point out that [Tenant 4] did not submit any objective evidence to support the claims under this heading. For example, there was no report from an independent assessor regarding compliance with the healthy homes standards. All I have are [Tenant 4’s] complaints and his verbal submissions, except for the water leak, where I did see water coming down from the hallway/common area of the house. [Tenant 4’s] submissions Dampness Issues
On 19 November 2022, there were significant downpours of water leaking from the roof, which were recorded in video.
These leaks occurred approximately 5-6 times during the 14-month tenancy, happening approximately once every 2 months.
To mitigate the overflowing water during the 19 November 2022, incident, pots, pans, and a child's sandpit were used to collect the water.
He said the leak lasted for over an hour and caused the ceiling to become swollen from water damage in the subsequent days. The continual leakage, combined with a lack of heating, created a damp environment conducive to illness, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Draught Issues
He pointed to the Healthy Homes statement, which stated that there were gaps around some windows that could not be fixed due to the home's age.
He claimed to have seen ants going up toward the window area, indicating that draughts were allowing ants to enter. He stated that during the winter months, cold draughts would come in through the window gaps, especially when combined with a lack of heating, contributing to a damp, cold environment due to the cumulative effect when combined with leaks and lack of heating Mr Wragge’s submissions Dampness/Leaks
He acknowledged that there was a leak issue due to the design constraints of the internal gutter/valley on the villa-style roof. He claimed he included an exemption regarding "odd leak" in the Healthy Homes statement based on Tenancy Services advice.
He maintained that the leak did not cause mould, damage carpets/ceilings, or impact rooms - it only resulted in an overflow in the passageway.
He suggested that he was not informed about the significant leak on 19 November 2022 and, therefore, was unable to make an insurance claim.
He argued that leaks eventually stop once the rain ceases and had no lasting impact on the use of the premises Draught Issues
He stated that the windows were original wood windows from when the home was built in the 1900s and had been refurbished.
He claimed that he tried using rubber seals, but they did not work because they perished when opening or closing the windows. He maintained that there were drapes, blinds, and sun curtains, which would have prevented major draughts.
He suggested that some air getting in or out is expected in any home with glass windows or doors based on the physics of heat dispersion. He questioned what impact the draught issues actually had on the tenants' use of the premises My view
There was a confirmed leaking problem, but it was not clear to me how the leak led to dampness in the house.
[Tenant 4] suggested that there was a heating issue, but he admitted that Mr. Wragge had installed a heat pump, although Mr Wragge did not install it within 90 days of the commencement of the tenancy. [Tenant 4] did not substantiate what damage the late installation of the heat pump had caused.
Further, [Tenant 4] did not provide me with evidence of the draught issue. He only stated that during the winter months, cold draughts would come in through window gaps, along with a lack of heating. There was no evidence to indicate where the draught was coming from, which window it was coming through, or how big the gap was.
In essence, [Tenant 4] wanted me to speculate on the level of dampness in the house and identify the source of the draughts.
Even though Mr. Wragge acknowledged that there might be draughty issues, he did not accept that he failed to comply with the healthy homes standards.
In my view, [Tenant 4] has not proven on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Wragge failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard and the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Accordingly, [Tenant 4] claim under this heading is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them.
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. (emphasis mine)
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. [Tenant 4's] submissions
He claimed Mr. Wragge's conduct and constant emails/communication both during and after the tenancy ended amounted to harassment and intimidation that breached their quiet enjoyment. [Tenant 4] said: "Effectively his conduct in the way he has been speaking to us. So it's effectively both during and ending the tenancy. We believe he's gone outside of reasonable conduct and this is more or less leading towards harassment and intimidating behaviour."
He provided an example of Mr. Wragge sending emails referencing communication with a previous tenant's father in an attempt to intimidate them to stop pressing the ant issue. [Tenant 4] said after the tenancy, Mr Wragge trying to: "... intimidate us into dropping the ant issue by sending communications with the prior tenant and her father".
He stated there were other instances where they made their position clear, but Mr. Wragge would continue "barraging" them with emails making demands for payment like $400 for mowing the lawn.
He argued this excessive communication and Mr. Wragge's personal insults like calling them "unprofessional" and comments about their hygiene went beyond a reasonable level. Mr Wragge’s submissions
He stated he made a decision early on to keep a trail of correspondence to document everything that happened and his responses.
He claimed his correspondence responded to the tenants' accusations about the property's condition.
He suggested the tenants were the ones making accusations that he was a bad landlord, the house was unclean/unmaintained etc. so he was entitled to respond.
He provided a reference letter from his new tenant praising him as polite and accommodating as evidence of his handling of tenancy issues.
He insinuated the tenants were being overly sensitive, using words like "harassment" too subjectively. My view
I asked [Tenant 4] how the communication between the parties escalated to the point of breaching the quiet enjoyment of their use of the property. I raised this question because the communication seemed to be centred around tenancy maintenance issues rather than the "use" of the premises. In a situation without property managers, direct communication between tenants and landlords can sometimes become tense. However, does this constitute harassment?
In my view, [Tenant 4] has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the communication between the parties regarding maintenance issues of the premises interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in using the property.
Another reason why [Tenant 4’s] claim under this heading is not substantiated is because the maintenance issue is before me for adjudication. [Tenant 4] has not indicated that the tenants were unable to use the facilities or that Mr. Wragge interfered with their use of the premises.
Accordingly, [Tenant 4’s] claim under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded in proceedings. I order the suppression of the tenants' names but not the tenancy address because the tenants had vacated the premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680149 — Exemplary damages at 20 Sunnyvale Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680149 — Exemplary damages at 20 Sunnyvale Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

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