What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4688029 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 4688029?

Compensation: No Power In Garage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4688029?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4688029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9719365-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4688029 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 4688029?

Compensation: No Power In Garage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4688029?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4688029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9719365-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 2, 17 Third Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4688029 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4688029 — net $220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: No power in garage	$200.00	No power in garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$220.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$220.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 8 July 2021 and ended on 10 April 2023.
The tenant’s application raises the following issues: a. Failure to provide a key for the back door. b. Power supply for the garage linked to a neighbouring unit. c. Interference with peace, comfort, and privacy.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 22 November 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Mr O’Connor represented the landlord. Keys
The unit has a back door and a front door.
At the start of the tenancy Mr O’Connor gave [The tenant/s] a key for the front door but not the back door.
[The tenant/s] asked whether she could have a key for the back door. Mr O’Connor came around with a large bundle of keys but was not able to find one that fit the back door.
[The tenant/s] submitted that it was inconvenient for her to not have a key for the back door.
Landlords have a duty to “provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure” 1
Mr O’Connor submitted that: a. The tenancy agreement states that there is one key. b. The back door has a functioning lock.
The absence of a back door key is puzzling, and I accept that it caused some inconvenience for [The tenant/s].
However the landlord has not breached any legal duty. The premises are reasonably secure. The contract did not provide for two keys.
Therefore this part of the claim must be dismissed. Power in garage
This unit has a carport and a separate enclosed garage. The garage has a power point, and [The tenant/s] had a fridge / freezer plugged in there.
In August 2021, the unit directly above [The tenant/s] lost power. Mr O’Connor involved an electrician, who discovered that the loss of power was caused by a short in the power point in [The tenant/s] garage.
Prior to this, Mr O’Connor was not aware that the power in [The tenant/s] garage was linked to this unit and not to [The tenant/s] unit.
The electrician disconnected and made safe the power point, which meant that [The tenant/s] did not have the use of it for the remainder of her tenancy. 1 Section 46(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
The loss of the power point was a loss of amenity for [The tenant/s], albeit a relatively minor one.
I will award compensation of $200.00.
The ‘switched’ power supply raises a question as to whether the other garage is linked to [The tenant/s] unit, in which case [The tenant/s] would have paid for the power used in that garage.
However, Mr O’Connor maintained that the other garage is also linked to the upstairs unit, and I do not have any evidence to indicate that this is incorrect. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy 2
[The tenant/s] submissions focussed on three incidents, which took place on 2 December 2022, 9 December 2022, and March 2023. 2 December 2022
Mr O’Connor phoned [The tenant/s] when she was at work to ask whether she would consent to a tradesman entering the premises.
Mr O’Connor submitted that the tradesman happened to be in the area and had some time available on that day. He knew that the business is very busy, and if he did not get the tradesman on that day he would have to wait until February.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she felt pressured into agreeing to allow the tradesman to enter. Mr O’Connor spoke to her and then put the tradesman on the phone to speak to her.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she felt like she could not say no to this request, even though she was anxious about a person entering the premises when she was not there.
Landlords can enter the premises at any time “with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry” 3 .
The fact that the RTA allows entry with the consent of the tenant means that it is acceptable for the landlord to ask for consent, even though there is always a power imbalance implicit in that conversation.
Mr O’Connor denies that he was insistent or that he spoke inappropriately in that conversation. He submitted that he put the tradesman on the line to 2 Section 38(2) RTA 3 Section 48(1)(a) RTA address any concerns that [The tenant/s] may have had, but [The tenant/s] could have said no.
I accept that this incident caused [The tenant/s] some distress.
However, the Tribunal must attempt to take an objective approach to allegations of breach of quiet enjoyment. The question is not whether the tenant felt distressed, the question is whether the proven behaviour or language by the landlord was so inappropriate as to amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy.
It was not inappropriate for Mr O’Connor to phone [The tenant/s] and ask for her consent to enter the premises. [The tenant/s] and Mr O’Connor have differing recollections of the phone call.
My finding is that it is not proven that Mr O’Connor pressured [The tenant/s] into agreeing to allow the tradesman into the property. 9 December 2022
[The tenant/s] submitted that in the morning of 9 December, Mr O’Connor knocked on her ranchslider, and called out to get her attention. He then asked her whether she had seen a key that he was missing. [The tenant/s] said ‘no’.
[The tenant/s] submitted that Mr O’Connor could have called or texted her, and that him ‘appearing’ at her ranchslider door in the morning when she was getting ready to go to work was “a complete breach of my privacy”.
Mr O’Connor had no recollection of this incident, which is unsurprising given that (from his perspective) it was innocuous, and it happened quite some time ago.
Mr O’Connor commented that it is possible that he may have dropped a key and was attempting to re-trace his steps.
Again, I acknowledge that [The tenant/s] felt uncomfortable about this incident.
However, taking an objective approach, this is not an instance of Mr O’Connor harassing [The tenant/s]. I accept that Mr O’Connor was there because he had lost a key. It is not unlawful for a landlord to knock on the tenant’s door and ask a question. The interaction was very brief.
This incident does not amount to an unreasonable interference with [The tenant/s] peace, comfort, and privacy. March 2023
[The tenant/s] was working from home and was about to start a meeting when very noisy construction work began in the neighbouring unit, on a wall that was directly behind where she was seated.
[The tenant/s] submitted that when she complained to Mr O’Connor, he told her that it would only take a couple of hours.
Mr O’Connor submitted that when he organised the work, he understood that the tradesman would only need to use a wood drill, but in fact he used a concrete drill, which was extremely noisy.
He submitted that when [The tenant/s] complained he asked the tradesman to stop using the drill, and he asked [The tenant/s] to let him know when her meeting was finished. When she did so, he recommenced the work.
The tenanted premises is in a block of units. A tenant’s expectations of reasonable peace, comfort and privacy must take into account the nature of the premises and the proximity of neighbours. The reality is that [The tenant/s] efforts to work from home were always vulnerable to interruption due to normal lawful activity going on in neighbouring units.
I agree that it is wise for landlords to let nearby tenants know if there is going to be particularly noisy, or prolonged, construction work going on. However, I accept Mr O’Connor’s statement that he had no such understanding in this instance, and he was surprised when a concrete drill was used.
It is not proven that Mr O’Connor refused to pause the work when [The tenant/s] raised a concern about it – an action that, in any event, would have been bad manners but not obviously a breach of a legal duty. Mr O’Connor has the right, and indeed an obligation, to carry out necessary maintenance work on neighbouring units.
Therefore I find that there is no proven breach of a legal duty, and no basis for an award of compensation, under this heading. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in this application, and I will also award her the filing fee of $20.44 4 .
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. [The tenant/s] has not “substantially succeeded” in the proceedings 5 , but I consider that it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression 6 having regard to the following factors: 4 Section 102(4)(b) RTA 5 Section 95A(1) RTA 6 Section 95A(4) RTA a. [The tenant/s] has been partially successful in the proceedings. b. There is no legitimate public interest in the publication of the tenant’s name, and there is an unreasonable risk that publication may be unjustly detrimental to her.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4688029 — net $220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: No power in garage	$200.00	No power in garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$220.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$220.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 8 July 2021 and ended on 10 April 2023.
The tenant’s application raises the following issues: a. Failure to provide a key for the back door. b. Power supply for the garage linked to a neighbouring unit. c. Interference with peace, comfort, and privacy.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 22 November 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Mr O’Connor represented the landlord. Keys
The unit has a back door and a front door.
At the start of the tenancy Mr O’Connor gave [The tenant/s] a key for the front door but not the back door.
[The tenant/s] asked whether she could have a key for the back door. Mr O’Connor came around with a large bundle of keys but was not able to find one that fit the back door.
[The tenant/s] submitted that it was inconvenient for her to not have a key for the back door.
Landlords have a duty to “provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure” 1
Mr O’Connor submitted that: a. The tenancy agreement states that there is one key. b. The back door has a functioning lock.
The absence of a back door key is puzzling, and I accept that it caused some inconvenience for [The tenant/s].
However the landlord has not breached any legal duty. The premises are reasonably secure. The contract did not provide for two keys.
Therefore this part of the claim must be dismissed. Power in garage
This unit has a carport and a separate enclosed garage. The garage has a power point, and [The tenant/s] had a fridge / freezer plugged in there.
In August 2021, the unit directly above [The tenant/s] lost power. Mr O’Connor involved an electrician, who discovered that the loss of power was caused by a short in the power point in [The tenant/s] garage.
Prior to this, Mr O’Connor was not aware that the power in [The tenant/s] garage was linked to this unit and not to [The tenant/s] unit.
The electrician disconnected and made safe the power point, which meant that [The tenant/s] did not have the use of it for the remainder of her tenancy. 1 Section 46(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
The loss of the power point was a loss of amenity for [The tenant/s], albeit a relatively minor one.
I will award compensation of $200.00.
The ‘switched’ power supply raises a question as to whether the other garage is linked to [The tenant/s] unit, in which case [The tenant/s] would have paid for the power used in that garage.
However, Mr O’Connor maintained that the other garage is also linked to the upstairs unit, and I do not have any evidence to indicate that this is incorrect. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy 2
[The tenant/s] submissions focussed on three incidents, which took place on 2 December 2022, 9 December 2022, and March 2023. 2 December 2022
Mr O’Connor phoned [The tenant/s] when she was at work to ask whether she would consent to a tradesman entering the premises.
Mr O’Connor submitted that the tradesman happened to be in the area and had some time available on that day. He knew that the business is very busy, and if he did not get the tradesman on that day he would have to wait until February.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she felt pressured into agreeing to allow the tradesman to enter. Mr O’Connor spoke to her and then put the tradesman on the phone to speak to her.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she felt like she could not say no to this request, even though she was anxious about a person entering the premises when she was not there.
Landlords can enter the premises at any time “with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry” 3 .
The fact that the RTA allows entry with the consent of the tenant means that it is acceptable for the landlord to ask for consent, even though there is always a power imbalance implicit in that conversation.
Mr O’Connor denies that he was insistent or that he spoke inappropriately in that conversation. He submitted that he put the tradesman on the line to 2 Section 38(2) RTA 3 Section 48(1)(a) RTA address any concerns that [The tenant/s] may have had, but [The tenant/s] could have said no.
I accept that this incident caused [The tenant/s] some distress.
However, the Tribunal must attempt to take an objective approach to allegations of breach of quiet enjoyment. The question is not whether the tenant felt distressed, the question is whether the proven behaviour or language by the landlord was so inappropriate as to amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy.
It was not inappropriate for Mr O’Connor to phone [The tenant/s] and ask for her consent to enter the premises. [The tenant/s] and Mr O’Connor have differing recollections of the phone call.
My finding is that it is not proven that Mr O’Connor pressured [The tenant/s] into agreeing to allow the tradesman into the property. 9 December 2022
[The tenant/s] submitted that in the morning of 9 December, Mr O’Connor knocked on her ranchslider, and called out to get her attention. He then asked her whether she had seen a key that he was missing. [The tenant/s] said ‘no’.
[The tenant/s] submitted that Mr O’Connor could have called or texted her, and that him ‘appearing’ at her ranchslider door in the morning when she was getting ready to go to work was “a complete breach of my privacy”.
Mr O’Connor had no recollection of this incident, which is unsurprising given that (from his perspective) it was innocuous, and it happened quite some time ago.
Mr O’Connor commented that it is possible that he may have dropped a key and was attempting to re-trace his steps.
Again, I acknowledge that [The tenant/s] felt uncomfortable about this incident.
However, taking an objective approach, this is not an instance of Mr O’Connor harassing [The tenant/s]. I accept that Mr O’Connor was there because he had lost a key. It is not unlawful for a landlord to knock on the tenant’s door and ask a question. The interaction was very brief.
This incident does not amount to an unreasonable interference with [The tenant/s] peace, comfort, and privacy. March 2023
[The tenant/s] was working from home and was about to start a meeting when very noisy construction work began in the neighbouring unit, on a wall that was directly behind where she was seated.
[The tenant/s] submitted that when she complained to Mr O’Connor, he told her that it would only take a couple of hours.
Mr O’Connor submitted that when he organised the work, he understood that the tradesman would only need to use a wood drill, but in fact he used a concrete drill, which was extremely noisy.
He submitted that when [The tenant/s] complained he asked the tradesman to stop using the drill, and he asked [The tenant/s] to let him know when her meeting was finished. When she did so, he recommenced the work.
The tenanted premises is in a block of units. A tenant’s expectations of reasonable peace, comfort and privacy must take into account the nature of the premises and the proximity of neighbours. The reality is that [The tenant/s] efforts to work from home were always vulnerable to interruption due to normal lawful activity going on in neighbouring units.
I agree that it is wise for landlords to let nearby tenants know if there is going to be particularly noisy, or prolonged, construction work going on. However, I accept Mr O’Connor’s statement that he had no such understanding in this instance, and he was surprised when a concrete drill was used.
It is not proven that Mr O’Connor refused to pause the work when [The tenant/s] raised a concern about it – an action that, in any event, would have been bad manners but not obviously a breach of a legal duty. Mr O’Connor has the right, and indeed an obligation, to carry out necessary maintenance work on neighbouring units.
Therefore I find that there is no proven breach of a legal duty, and no basis for an award of compensation, under this heading. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in this application, and I will also award her the filing fee of $20.44 4 .
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. [The tenant/s] has not “substantially succeeded” in the proceedings 5 , but I consider that it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression 6 having regard to the following factors: 4 Section 102(4)(b) RTA 5 Section 95A(1) RTA 6 Section 95A(4) RTA a. [The tenant/s] has been partially successful in the proceedings. b. There is no legitimate public interest in the publication of the tenant’s name, and there is an unreasonable risk that publication may be unjustly detrimental to her.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4688029 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 2, 17 Third Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4688029 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 2, 17 Third Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions