What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4742832 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to pay $780.00 compensation to [The

How much money was awarded in case 4742832?

Compensation: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742832?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10143983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4742832 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to pay $780.00 compensation to [The

How much money was awarded in case 4742832?

Compensation: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742832?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10143983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4742832 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742832. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
compensation to [The tenant/s] immediately. 2. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to pay	$20.44		compensation to [The tenant/s] immediately. 2. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to pay

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742832. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
compensation to [The tenant/s] immediately. 2. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to pay	$20.44		compensation to [The tenant/s] immediately. 2. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to pay

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to pay $780.00 compensation to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to pay $20.44 to [The tenant/s] immediately for the filing fee.

Reasons

Has the landlord taken all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to control other tenants interfering with her peace and comfort. Section 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord’s responsibilities include taking all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord breached that responsibility. The tenancy
The tenancy at [Address 1] began in early August 2022. [The tenant/s] moved to [Address 1] from [Address 2] where she experienced problems with another tenant of Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities (KO). The move to [Address 1] was intended to help her make a fresh start.
As with the tenancy at [Address 2], the tenancy at [Address 1] was extremely difficult both for [The tenant/s] and for the landlord. The landlord provided a record (hereafter’ the Record’) of all the phone calls, [The tenant/s]’s visits to KO offices and visits by the property managers to [The tenant/s] during the [Address 1] tenancy. The Record has over 268 entries in about 19 months up to 12 February 2024. I have read through all the entries.
Within a month of moving in to [Address 1], [The tenant/s] was at the office of KO and making calls to report that a neighbour next door was threatening her, neighbours were abusing their dogs and the tenant from [Address 2] was still bothering her. She complained that the people staying with the tenant at [Address 1B] were throwing stones at her house and had dangerous pit bull dogs. The landlord visited the tenant at [Address 1B] and shortly after the people staying with that tenant left, taking their dogs. The Record shows that as time went on there were less complaints from [The tenant/s] about the tenant from [Address 2].
However this application is about the landlord’s response to the behaviour of the tenant/s in [Address 3]. That property adjoins [Address 1]. The problems between [Address 3] and [The tenant/s] were ongoing. The following is an example of what is in the Record for about a two week period, five months into the tenancy. a. On 9 Jan 2023 the property manager (PM) called [The tenant/s] because [Address 3] had made a complaint about her. During the call the PM “could hear children yelling abuse at [The tenant/s]”. The PM reported that she had “chatted to the neighbour and hoped that things would calm down”. b. On 17 January 2023 the PM contacted the police because on separate calls [The tenant/s] threatened to hire a digger and ‘bust down [Address 3]’. c. On the 18 January 2023 phone call the PM reported that [The tenant/s] started yelling at someone at [Address 3] while she was on the phone. [The tenant/s] made threats that she would chop them up with her machete. The PM could hear a person respond threatening a brick to [The tenant/s]’s head. d. On 22 Jan 23 KO received an anonymous call accusing [The tenant/s] of rude and abusive behaviour and threatening tenants in the neighbourhood. e. On 24 January 2023 KO received a call from a neighbour complaining that on the weekend [The tenant/s] had threatened to stab them. f. On 25 January KO visited [The tenant/s] regarding the threats.
The complaints [The tenant/s] made about stones/rocks being thrown at her house and interference from the tenants in [Address 3] did not stop. From [The tenant/s]’s point of view, the landlord was not doing anything to stop the intimidation she was feeling from the activity of the tenant/s at [Address 3]. The maintenance record shows that in November 2022 and February 2023 numbers of broken windows were repaired. [The tenant/s] requested windows be boarded up so the neighbour couldn’t break the windows or look in. At one point she thought the neighbours were looking at her while she was on the toilet. The Record shows that [The tenant/s]’s complaints about items being thrown from [Address 3] into her property began shortly after the start of her tenancy and continued throughout 2023. Her complaints about loud music and dogs barking follow a similar pattern. The Record also states when the property managers visited, they saw stones in [The tenant/s]’s property.
The landlord does not dispute that [The tenant/s] made many complaints about the rocks thrown from [Address 3]. There are also complaints about fireworks, rubbish thrown over the fence into her property, dogs barking for long periods, loud music and gatherings of people that intimidated her over the fence. The landlord has said that the tenant at [Address 3] denied the behaviour that [The tenant/s] complained about.
The landlord stated that it has not been possible to identify who is to blame for the disruption [The tenant/s] experienced. The landlord believed that [The tenant/s]’s behaviour could be the cause of the breakdown and conflict between their tenants. KO pointed to the Record which shows that [The tenant/s] has difficulty controlling her behaviour and language. KO staff endeavoured to assist her in a variety of ways however if they did not give the answers [The tenant/s] wanted or did not act as quickly as she expected, [The tenant/s] became abusive. For example, on 26 January 2023 she called KO and complained that the neighbours had 4 dogs and she was not allowed a dog. In that conversation she became irritated and threatened to rip the Housing Senior Manager’s face off. [The tenant/s] would make several calls on the same day about the same matters. She would hang up when she became irritated. The Record states that [The tenant/s] would be ‘yelling at the neighbour’ while talking to KO staff. The Record provides comments [The tenant/s] made that did not seem rational. She talked about the police wanting to “jump her”, about being abused by the CIA, about being held hostage at her property, about being stalked by a police officer, and about wanting to have a roofer over to check if there were people in the roof. These latter comments can make it more difficult for a landlord to know what weight to give to other complaints. Despite KO staff finding [The tenant/s] to be difficult and abusive, her property manager took food to her when she said she didn’t have money for food. Did the tenants at [Address 3] interfere with [The tenant/s]’s peace and comfort?
The first question to answer in this case is whether any of the landlord’s tenants was causing interference with [The tenant/s]’s peace and comfort. The question to answer is not who was to blame for what was happening. The Act does not require an assessment of which tenant was provoking the other. It requires an assessment of whether a tenant is causing interference with another tenant’s peace and comfort. The responsibility of the landlord that follows is to take all reasonable steps to stop that interference.
From the evidence presented it is easy to conclude that rocks/stones, rubbish over the fence, dogs barking and loud music were coming from [Address 3]. This is an interference with the tenant at [Address 1B]’s peace and comfort. It therefore required the landlord to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Did the landlord take all reasonable steps to ensure this didn’t continue?
The interference by the neighbouring tenant is a breach capable of remedy. The normal process where there is a tenant breach capable of remedy is for the landlord to issue a 14 day notice. The notice sets out the breach and the requirement to stop the behaviour within 14 days. If the tenant continues the behaviour the landlord can apply to the Tribunal for a termination of the tenancy under s56 RTA.
The landlord could also have given three written notices to the tenant/s at [Address 3] because they had engaged in anti-social behaviour and then applied to the Tribunal under section 55A RTA for termination.
I have checked the record and KO’s other evidence and submissions and do not find any reference to a 14 day notice issued to the tenant/s at [Address 3] or notices for anti-social behaviour. That needed to happen. Whoever was causing the problem is irrelevant because the action of throwing stones and rubbish into a neighbouring tenant’s property is a breach that the landlord must deal with.
From what I can gather from the Record, the landlord’s response to the complaints was to visit [Address 3] to speak to the tenants. Although the tenant/s at [Address 3] denied the behaviour [The tenant/s] complained about I am satisfied that the landlord had enough evidence that items were being thrown. Broken windows in [Address 1B] facing [Address 3], stones on the ground, rubbish over the fence. The landlord also acted by visiting [The tenant/s] to help her with the problem. But the reasonable step that the landlord did not take was issuing the tenant/s at [Address 3] with a 14 day notice or anti-social behaviour notices requiring them to stop what they were doing. If the behaviour of throwing objects over the fence continued, the next reasonable step was to apply to the Tribunal to evict the tenants at [Address 3].
Although [The tenant/s] by her behaviour was most likely a contributor to the problem between her and the tenants at [Address 3], the landlord still had to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the interference stopped from [Address 3]. It is the landlord, not the police, that has authority under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to take steps to hold tenants to account and end tenancies if tenants refuse to cooperate.
I therefore conclude that there was behaviour from the tenant/s at [Address 3] that interfered with [The tenant/s]’s peace and comfort and that the landlord took some reasonable steps but not all reasonable steps to stop it.
I should add that the Record shows that landlord also received complaints about [The tenant/s]’s behaviour from the landlord’s other tenants. Her threats to the tenants next door were a breach of their peace and comfort. If KO believed that [The tenant/s] was threatening the tenants at [Address 3] in the ways the Record shows, she should also have been issued with a 14 day notice or anti-social behaviour notices regarding that behaviour. If the landlord had been more interventionist with the behaviours of both parties, the peace and comfort of both in 2023 could have been different. If the tenants’ responses to each other had been reined in, the peace and comfort of all tenants would most likely have improved. The amount of compensation
[The tenant/s] is entitled to some compensation because the landlord’s failure to take reasonable steps regarding the behaviour of tenant/s in [Address 3].
[The tenant/s] has claimed $100,000.00.
[The tenant/s] has not suffered any tangible loss such as loss or damage to property. She is claiming for an intangible loss. It is well established in law that where the loss suffered is intangible, awards must be kept modest. Some degree of anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to contracts such as residential tenancies. Virtually any breach brings with it some degree of disappointment and upset, and almost every action could give rise to a claim for intangible loss. It is very difficult to put a price on an intangible, when it is not open to mathematical calculation, and requires some degree of subjective assessment and impression. The primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
Applicant [name suppressed] v Singh (2022) NZTT Auckland 4315225 is a previous case which suggests appropriate bands where awards are made for emotional harm damages: “A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
I have determined that “B” is an appropriate band in this case. [The tenant/s] experienced ‘mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety’. I would set the award at $2,000.00 for the period of time from September 2022 to October 2023. However in determining the appropriate compensation, I must also decide whether compensation should be for that full period of time. That is because Section 49 RTA requires: ‘Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.’
[The tenant/s]’s claim for emotional harm could have been addressed by a Tribunal much sooner if she had made an application to the Tribunal before November 2023. Her problems began in September 2022. With section 49 in mind, compensation should be considered for a period of 26 weeks – (about 6 months).
I must also take into account the fact that [The tenant/s] has contributed to the state of hostility of which she complains. It is more likely than not that if [The tenant/s] had not reacted to the tenants at [Address 3] with the intensity of language and threats the way she did, she would have had less trouble from those neighbours. She fuelled the fire with her behaviour. Therefore the compensation ordered is also reduced for that reason.
Having considered all these matters I have determined from a starting point of $2,000.00, that reasonable compensation to be paid by the landlord is $30.00 per week for 26 weeks, being $780.00. Exemplary Damages
[The tenant/s] has requested an order for exemplary damages to be paid for - ‘no peace and quiet, pain and suffering, failure to provide a safe environment’.
I am satisfied that it was the tenant/s at [Address 3] that caused the interference with [The tenant/s]’s peace and comfort, not the landlord. Exemplary damages are able to be ordered where a landlord harasses a tenant by interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. That is not the case here and the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
For completeness I should also add that under section 45(1A) the failure of a landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises, is not an unlawful act. Therefore there is no order for exemplary damages that can be made for a breach of s45(1)(e) RTA. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95, RTA). I do not find that publication is in the public interest.
The tenant sought name suppression and as she has been successful, I have awarded this. B Smallbone Thursday, 28 March 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742832 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742832 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions