What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4718532 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the name and identifying details of the landlord.

How much money was awarded in case 4718532?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4718532?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4718532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10059972-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4718532 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the name and identifying details of the landlord.

How much money was awarded in case 4718532?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4718532?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4718532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10059972-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4718532 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4718532 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4718532 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

The Tribunal suppresses the name and identifying details of the landlord.
[The landlord/s] must pay Liam John Dixon $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

Until recently, Mr Dixon was a tenant in this boarding house. He rented room 4. He has since moved overseas. He previously lived as a tenant in the same boarding house in 2020-21 for 12 months. The premises were owned by different owners then.
Mr Dixon considers that his tenancy during 2023 was not up to an acceptable standard for which he considers the new owner of the premises responsible.
The premises comprise 22 boarding rooms and a self-contained unit. According to the landlord, Mr Dixon’s application is the first application made by any tenant against this landlord.
Mr Dixon has applied to the Tribunal for order for compensation and exemplary damages for what he says were breaches by the landlord of its responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Mr Dixon has provided detailed documentary evidence to the Tribunal as well as videos showing rodent infestation.
I held a hearing on 17 January 2024. I heard oral evidence and submissions from both parties. Representatives for the landlord company attended as did Mr Dixon with a support person.
I adjourned the hearing part-heard with directions. I wanted to be sure that the Tribunal had all the evidence and submissions Mr Dixon wanted to present. I asked him to reformat the presentation of his case which he did.
I allowed the landlord time to produce a report addressing the condition of the premises, but no further information was provided by the landlord.
The hearing concluded on 21 February 2024 as noted in my directions order. The tenant’s application
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for: •Breaches of his quiet enjoyment and privacy •A failure by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises •A failure to comply with the Health Homes Standards (HHS) •Losses he suffered (mental and physical health; monetary losses; facility losses; education losses; and rental losses).
In assessing the application, I confirm that I have considered all the evidence the tenant provided and the landlord’s evidence (even if I do not specifically refer to it) as well as the submissions both parties made.
I note at the outset, as I told the tenant at the hearing, that the picture he painted of this tenancy was one of an intolerable living situation, one he would be expected not to have remained in. Yet, the evidence does not support that. I have been careful to make an objective assessment of the tenancy considering all the evidence.
I also note that the tenant said he was motivated in part by a desire to protect other tenants whom he said were not prepared to act against the landlord but who were grateful to him for doing so.
The Tribunal does not make orders on that basis. It confines itself to the issues raised by the particular parties. But I note than none of those apparently grateful tenants appeared as a witness for the tenant at the hearing. Issues
The Tribunal must determine whether the tenant has proved claims for compensation and for exemplary damages based on the several alleged landlord breaches. Relevant legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claims are for alleged actual losses and for the loss of use of and enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and privacy
Mr Dixon alleges that his quiet enjoyment of the premises was breached. His room has an adjoining area, part of an enclosed converted balcony, which he used as a studio. There is a gap between the window and the wall, clearly shown in photos produced in evidence. The gap means there is a space between the adjoining rooms.
Mr Dixon gave evidence that he could hear the neighbouring tenant snore and it felt as though that tenant shared his space.
The landlord gave evidence that they offered Mr Dixon another room which he declined.. They said the gap could not be closed as it would interfere with escape through the windows in the event of fire.
It is not acceptable to have a situation where there is a gap between the separate living spaces of the tenants. The gap is such that it would easily allow noise to travel through. That the gap was in the studio is irrelevant; it was in the part of the premises Mr Dixon rented.
A solution could easily have been found (for example the installation of a foam insert) that would not have impacted access out the windows as a means of escape.
The landlord said the tenant knew of the gap when he rented the room and only raised it as an issue in October 2023. He asked to move to a room without a gap, but then declined as the room was too small.
I accept that the tenant suffered some loss of quiet enjoyment, but that loss must be seen in context. His bedroom was separate from the studio where the gap was.
For this loss of enjoyment, I award the tenant compensation of $500.00.
The tenant referred to unsuitable tenants who dealt drugs and to a director of the landlord company entering his room without notice. That entry was in response to his compliant about the gap in the wall. He made general allegations of harassment and abuse by the landlord, all of which were denied.
A boarding house often has a mixture of tenants, sometimes vulnerable tenants, and there are times when particular tenants can be unsuitable and cause disturbance. The fact that can occur does not establish a landlord breach; it is the landlord’s response that is important.
Landlords have to comply with the provisions of the RTA when giving notice to terminate a tenancy. [The property manager/s] said the tenant in Room 5 was ‘bad’ and was evicted after 3 weeks. Since mediation, other tenants had been evicted as well.
The evidence does not establish any landlord breach for which the tenant should be awarded compensation or exemplary damages for these other alleged breaches of his quiet enjoyment. What the tenant described were the usual (and expected) challenges that boarding house tenancies sometimes produce. I am satisfied that the landlord generally dealt with the issues that arose appropriately and well. The landlord’s to maintain and repair the premises
Mr Dixon alleges that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The evidence overall does not establish that. The landlord produced invoices that show it has maintained the premises and has attended to any maintenance and repair issues as they arose.
The landlord employs a cleaner for the premises. Mr Dixon alleges that the property was filthy and unsanitary, the toilets unsanitary and the showers broken.
The landlord’s evidence proves that the contracted cleaner cleans the premises twice a week. Numerous invoices for cleaning dating back to February 2023 were produced in evidence. After the mediation the landlord paid for the cleaner to do an additional deep clean, the invoice for which was produced.
Generally, it is a tenant responsibility to ensure that the premises are kept reasonably clean. That is often part of the house rules. Here, the landlord assumed that responsibility, which was to the tenants’ benefit.
The tenant said that the hot water in the showers stopped working for a 2-week period around the end of September, during which he had to go to the gym to shower.
The landlord produced evidence of the plumbing repair which affected the upstairs showers only; hot water to the downstairs showers was unaffected. The landlord said the issue was for 3 days only, including the day the fault was reported.
Finally, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to provide adequate locks. The evidence the landlord’s representatives gave persuades the Tribunal that it committed no breach by failing to provide locks. The locks were then changed in October 2023. The tenant’s room had a keypad lock. I do not find proved the tenant’s allegation that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises. This claim, for compensation and exemplary damages, is dismissed. Rat infestation
The tenant produced a video showing rats in cupboards and other areas. At first glance, the video evidence is disturbing.
However, the landlord’s representatives gave evidence that the first notification of rodents was on 9 October 2023, and they immediately went to the premises to lay baits. By then, other tenants had laid baits.
The landlord then hired a professional pest company (invoice produced) to attend the premises and monitor the bait stations.
Rodent infestation is not a landlord breach; sometimes it just happens. It is the landlord’s response that matters. I find that the landlord took all reasonable steps to deal with the rodent problem once notified.
This claim, for compensation, is dismissed. A failure to comply with the Health Homes Standards (HHS)
The tenant alleges that the premises do not comply with the drainage standard of the HHS which has caused mould to grow.
The tenant produced no objective evidence such as a HHS assessment to prove his allegations.
The landlord’s representative said that the premises had been assessed as HHS compliant. She said the drainage had been checked by a plumber and no issues found. She produced evidence of the plumber’s attendance and confirmation that there were no drainage issues requiring repair.
The presence of mould, once notified, was dealt with by the landlord who arranged for extra cleaning. That said, the presence of mould is not necessarily a landlord breach. Mould can result from the way the premises are used.
The tenant has failed to prove that the premises were not HHS compliant. His application for exemplary damages under this head is dismissed. Losses suffered (mental and physical health; monetary losses; facility losses; education losses; and rental losses)
The tenant seeks compensation for stolen food ($700.00); the purchase of 3 tyres the result of him telling the police of another tenant’s gang involvement following which his tyres were slashed ($252.37); gym membership to use the showers ($13.99); and mental and physical health losses, a combined amount ‘of around $2000.00’, and ‘education losses’.
The tenant produced a letter from his counsellor that appears to attribute his unwellness to the conditions at the premises. I do not find that convincing.
These claims are largely speculative and are not proved. So too is the claim for ‘a loss of facilities’. The tenant has detailed a complex percentage estimate of amenities and facilities he believes he could not use. It makes little sense legally. On that basis he sought a rent reduction which the landlord (correctly) refused.
The tenant referred to other nearby boarding house premises where the rents were lower. When I asked why he did not relocate given his litany of complaints, he said a move would have seriously disrupted his life. I do not accept that. The tenant rented a room. A move would have been relatively straight forward.
The tenant appeared to suggest that the Tribunal should afford him some rent relief. This is not a market rent application. The Tribunal does not interfere with rent unless the criteria for a market rent determination are met. They are not in this case. Comment
Earlier in this decision, I referred to the tenant describing an intolerable living situation. The evidence simply does not bear out his many complaints and the considerable monetary relief he seeks. I find that he has well and truly ‘over- egged the pudding’ to use an old phrase.
Had the tenancy been as dreadful as the tenant described, no tenant would have remained there. That a move to a cheaper, more desirable boarding house close by was an option, but not one he exercised, is something the Tribunal cannot reconcile with the claims he has made.
The landlord’s more measured approach, accompanied by the documentary evidence they produced, persuades the Tribunal that the premises were not in the terrible state of repair the tenant described, nor did the landlord fail to manage the tenancy (including their obligations to repair and maintain the premises and to ensure HHS compliance).
Given the criteria that apply to exemplary damages, including that the landlord commit a breach of their obligations intentionally, the tenant’s claims fall well short of being proved. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $500.00 for a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the tenancy due to the gap between the walls in the balcony area That also resulted also in a lack of privacy.
The tenant’s remaining claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
I make no award of the filing fee as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. I make no order suppressing the tenant’s name. The tenant has achieved only minor success when viewed against the many issues he raised and in respect of which he sought orders. The landlord has mostly succeeded in its defence and is therefore entitled to a name suppression order – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4718532 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4718532 — Tenancy dispute

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