What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4732130?

The tribunal order states: Brenda-Lee Ritchie to pay Archer Mchattie Limited As Agent For Geoff

How much money was awarded in case 4732130?

Rent Arrears: $192.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4732130?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4732130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9998667-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4732130?

The tribunal order states: Brenda-Lee Ritchie to pay Archer Mchattie Limited As Agent For Geoff

How much money was awarded in case 4732130?

Rent Arrears: $192.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4732130?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4732130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9998667-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4732130 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4732130 — net $192.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$192.86	Rent arrears
Net award	$192.86
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$192.86

Order

Brenda-Lee Ritchie to pay Archer Mchattie Limited As Agent For Geoff And Maggie Smith $192.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (5057031-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Archer Mchattie Limited As Agent For Geoff And Maggie Smith: $192.86 Brenda-Lee Ritchie: $1,487.14
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has now ended and possession has returned to the landlord on 25 September 2023.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today, and we addressed the claims as follows:

RENT ARREARS

The landlord’s only claim is for rent arrears. The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $192.86.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with two rent ledgers in relation to that claim. The tenant states that she has received a number of different rent ledgers, and to that extent was not sure what the situation was with her rent payments.
To be fair to the tenant, I accept there would have been some confusion. I noted today that there are two rent ledgers on file and they are different. Following discussion it appears that the difference relates to the fact that one of the ledgers has failed to take into account a rent increase. But I accept the most updated rent ledger has the correct rent due amount, and so will work from that latest document. I asked the tenant whether she could identify any other problems with that rental ledger, and she could not. On balance I accept the most recent rent ledger as accurate.
The landlord has established that the tenant is in arrears to the amount claimed and set out in the updated rent ledger, and that is ordered in full.

TENANTS CLAIMS

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment, and also unlawful entry, but both claims relate to an episode at the Tenancy at the time of an inspection on Thursday 13 July.
Having heard from the parties, and considering the documentation available, this is what I understand occurred: a. On 7 July 2023, the property manager emailed the tenant stating: Good afternoon Brenda, Just to confirm our telephone conversation today we will be at the property with a builder 11 am this coming Thursday. b. On the day of the inspection, 13 July 2023, the property manager arrived with two of the trustees of the property and a builder. c. Mr Archer knocked on the door, and the group were invited in. d. The group set about inspecting the premises, and the tenant stayed in one particular room behind curtains. The tenant had visitors, although there seem some dispute as to whether they were present when the landlord and the group arrive, or later – but nothing will turn on that e. At the end of the inspection, the landlord and group left. I note for completeness that the tenant confirmed that she did not at any stage ask them to leave. f. The tenant subsequently complained to the property manager around the inspection, and not being aware there would be the four people present. The property manager responded accepting that when the email notice was sent referring to “we” that there was most likely a misunderstanding as to who “we” meant and otherwise apologising for any distress that caused. It is apparent from subsequent email communications that the tenant accepted the landlord’s apology, and considered that was the end of the matter (see email 17 July 2023).
Section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is the provision that sets out the landlords right of entry to the premises. Subsection 1 confirms that: 48 Landlord’s right of entry (1) The landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except— (a) with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or (b) in any of the circumstances described in subsections (2) to (3).
Subsection 2 confirms that the landlord may into the premises following minimum notice periods (unless it is an emergency), and subsection 3 confirms that the landlord may not enter the premises for an expert appraisal unless consented to by the tenant.
In this case, there is no doubt that the landlord did lawfully enter into the premises, because the landlord entered with the consent of the tenant, or a person in the tenancy who could have given that consent, immediately at the time of the entry. The landlord and the group were therefore able to come in to the premises, and there is otherwise no suggestion that they were asked to leave. For the avoidance of doubt, when a landlord enters the premises by consent (like occurred here), the landlord does not need to give advance notice to the tenant.
Accordingly, the landlords entry of the premises was lawful so the claim for unlawful entry must fail.
The tenant has also claimed exemplary damages for a breach of her quiet enjoyment in relation to that event.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quite enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009- 019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
As I explain to the tenant at the hearing today, I can see no evidence of the property manager, or those who attended the tenancy engaging in harassment of the tenant as summarised above. At the very worst, if the tenants evidence was accepted, the group may have misjudged things, but that is certainly not harassment. There no evidence supporting an intention on the part of the group to set about upsetting the tenant during that visit.
Because there is no evidence of harassment, the Tribunal cannot order exemplary damages, so this claim must fail also.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, the landlord has not. The tenants application for name suppression must be dismissed, because the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in either her own claim, or a defence of the landlords claim. There would otherwise be no grounds upon which I could extend to a discretion to grant suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4732130 — net $192.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$192.86	Rent arrears
Net award	$192.86
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$192.86

Order

Brenda-Lee Ritchie to pay Archer Mchattie Limited As Agent For Geoff And Maggie Smith $192.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (5057031-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Archer Mchattie Limited As Agent For Geoff And Maggie Smith: $192.86 Brenda-Lee Ritchie: $1,487.14
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has now ended and possession has returned to the landlord on 25 September 2023.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today, and we addressed the claims as follows:

RENT ARREARS

The landlord’s only claim is for rent arrears. The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $192.86.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with two rent ledgers in relation to that claim. The tenant states that she has received a number of different rent ledgers, and to that extent was not sure what the situation was with her rent payments.
To be fair to the tenant, I accept there would have been some confusion. I noted today that there are two rent ledgers on file and they are different. Following discussion it appears that the difference relates to the fact that one of the ledgers has failed to take into account a rent increase. But I accept the most updated rent ledger has the correct rent due amount, and so will work from that latest document. I asked the tenant whether she could identify any other problems with that rental ledger, and she could not. On balance I accept the most recent rent ledger as accurate.
The landlord has established that the tenant is in arrears to the amount claimed and set out in the updated rent ledger, and that is ordered in full.

TENANTS CLAIMS

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment, and also unlawful entry, but both claims relate to an episode at the Tenancy at the time of an inspection on Thursday 13 July.
Having heard from the parties, and considering the documentation available, this is what I understand occurred: a. On 7 July 2023, the property manager emailed the tenant stating: Good afternoon Brenda, Just to confirm our telephone conversation today we will be at the property with a builder 11 am this coming Thursday. b. On the day of the inspection, 13 July 2023, the property manager arrived with two of the trustees of the property and a builder. c. Mr Archer knocked on the door, and the group were invited in. d. The group set about inspecting the premises, and the tenant stayed in one particular room behind curtains. The tenant had visitors, although there seem some dispute as to whether they were present when the landlord and the group arrive, or later – but nothing will turn on that e. At the end of the inspection, the landlord and group left. I note for completeness that the tenant confirmed that she did not at any stage ask them to leave. f. The tenant subsequently complained to the property manager around the inspection, and not being aware there would be the four people present. The property manager responded accepting that when the email notice was sent referring to “we” that there was most likely a misunderstanding as to who “we” meant and otherwise apologising for any distress that caused. It is apparent from subsequent email communications that the tenant accepted the landlord’s apology, and considered that was the end of the matter (see email 17 July 2023).
Section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is the provision that sets out the landlords right of entry to the premises. Subsection 1 confirms that: 48 Landlord’s right of entry (1) The landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except— (a) with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or (b) in any of the circumstances described in subsections (2) to (3).
Subsection 2 confirms that the landlord may into the premises following minimum notice periods (unless it is an emergency), and subsection 3 confirms that the landlord may not enter the premises for an expert appraisal unless consented to by the tenant.
In this case, there is no doubt that the landlord did lawfully enter into the premises, because the landlord entered with the consent of the tenant, or a person in the tenancy who could have given that consent, immediately at the time of the entry. The landlord and the group were therefore able to come in to the premises, and there is otherwise no suggestion that they were asked to leave. For the avoidance of doubt, when a landlord enters the premises by consent (like occurred here), the landlord does not need to give advance notice to the tenant.
Accordingly, the landlords entry of the premises was lawful so the claim for unlawful entry must fail.
The tenant has also claimed exemplary damages for a breach of her quiet enjoyment in relation to that event.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quite enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009- 019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
As I explain to the tenant at the hearing today, I can see no evidence of the property manager, or those who attended the tenancy engaging in harassment of the tenant as summarised above. At the very worst, if the tenants evidence was accepted, the group may have misjudged things, but that is certainly not harassment. There no evidence supporting an intention on the part of the group to set about upsetting the tenant during that visit.
Because there is no evidence of harassment, the Tribunal cannot order exemplary damages, so this claim must fail also.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, the landlord has not. The tenants application for name suppression must be dismissed, because the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in either her own claim, or a defence of the landlords claim. There would otherwise be no grounds upon which I could extend to a discretion to grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4732130 — Rent arrears at 12 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4732130 — Rent arrears at 12 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

TENANTS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

TENANTS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions