What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4682989 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately calculated as shown in the table

How much money was awarded in case 4682989?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682989?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9600407-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4682989 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately calculated as shown in the table

How much money was awarded in case 4682989?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682989?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9600407-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Defoe Place, Waltham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4682989 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4682989. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,500.00		Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Mr Adye and Ms Masters attended the hearing. Mr Parker attended with Mr Bowden of Harcourts Accommodation Centre who were the property managers for this tenancy.

The tenants claim compensation for the landlords’ breach of their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The tenancy was from August 2022 to September 2023. It was ended by consent after the tenants complained about an incident involving Mr Parker that occurred on 8 September at the premises. Law

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Discussion and Decision

There are four things that the tenants say constituted breach by the landlord of their right to quiet enjoyment

The first is Mr Parker’s habit of driving past the premises to check on it.

The evidence was that this happened perhaps four or five times. Mr Parker said that he had reason to go down the street, which is a cul de sac, to visit a friend. He looked at the premises from the outside and reported anything he was not happy with to Harcourts.

My sense is that Mr Parker wanted to keep an eye on the premises. He was concerned that the tenants were not keeping the garden up to the standard he expected. He said that the previous tenants had presented it to a prize-winning standard. He then became concerned that the tenants had a dog on the premises which the tenancy agreement did not permit.

On his behalf, Harcourts told the tenants that the landlords had the same entitlement as anyone else to drive down the street and look at the property. That is true to a point. But there could be circumstances where that could constitute an interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. Landlords do no need to go onto the premises to commit that breach.

In this case the evidence does not prove that the landlord acted in breach of the obligation.

The second involves a painter employed by the landlords who called at the premises without notice to do some painting on the premises. The tenants were aware that the landlords had arranged the painting and the painter had not attended as arranged previously due to the weather. When he arrived to do the painting, the tenants made the garage available to him to do the painting despite the lack of notice.

I do not find this to be a breach. The landlords did not authorise it and even if they had, I would not order any compensation for something that was so minor. The tenants could have sent the painter away if they chose.

The third involved Mr Parker attending at the premises to pick some lemons from a lemon tree at the front of the house. He had the tenants’ permission to do so but the tenants’ complaint is that he tried to look into their bedroom window which is by the lemon tree.

A neighbour took a photograph showing Mr Parker seemingly standing facing the window. Mr Parker said that he was simply standing there because he has a sore back, and he was not trying to look through the window into the bedroom. He said the curtains were closed and he would have no view into the bedroom in any case. The tenants says that there was a small gap between the curtains.

The photograph is not very clear. Indeed, at first it was difficult to see someone standing there at all. Given Mr Parker’s interest in knowing what was going on at the premises, it is possible that he took the opportunity to look into the premises, but I am not willing to draw that conclusion based on the photographic evidence. Therefore, this claim has not been proved.

Finally, there was an incident when Mr Parker says he had come to check whether the council had fixed a leak from the Toby at the front of the premises. He saw the tenants with a dog in the front garden. The tenants said the dog was not staying at the premises. He got out of his car, walked up the shared drive and accosted the tenants about the dog.

Mr Adye dealt with the situation, and he said that Mr Masters told him that he would put down the dog and Mr Adye as well. Mr Masters said he could not recall saying that, but he could recall Mr Masters telling him that he would “end” him. Mr Adye then escorted Mr Masters to his car. I note that Mr Adye is not one to back down from a confrontation and he was not intimidated by Mr Parker.

I accept Mr Adye’s evidence. I found him and Ms Masters to be honest and reliable witnesses. It is likely that Mr Parker was upset to see the dog there given that the tenants had been warned about having a dog on the premises. He did not deny speaking the threatening words. The tenants immediately reported the incident to Harcourts and to the Police.

Mr Parker’s actions were very ill advised. He had agents managing the premises, and he could have reported the incident to them and let them deal with it. If he felt compelled to say anything at all to the tenants, he should have remained civil and simply reminded them that they were not permitted to have a dog on the premises. What he said to the tenants, as I have found, was completely unacceptable. It is plainly an interference with the quiet enjoyment of tenants to threaten them with violence.

The tenants said that they found the incident extremely upsetting and that it triggered their anxiety and depression. So much so that they felt they had to end the tenancy. They have claimed substantial damages for the breach.

Assessing compensation in this situation is not a science. I judge Mr Adye to a robust sort of person. But I accept that the incident had a significant effect on the tenants. I note that the Residential Tenancies Acy 1986 takes a very dim view of threats. If a tenant threatens to assault a landlord, the Tribunal is required to terminate the tenancy on the landlord’s application. That is how seriously the Act takes such behaviour. The Tribunal should be equally intolerant of landlords who behave in that way.

This is not a case for exemplary damages because my findings preclude a finding that the landlords were engaged in a pattern of behaviour that constituted harassment.

The tenants have claimed the full sum of the rent they have paid over the course of the tenancy. That is not justified and nor is anything close to it. I find that compensation in the sum of $1,500 is appropriate. Filing Fee

The tenants have had significant success and so I awarded them the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4682989. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,500.00		Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement