What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4770557 about?

The tribunal order states: The application of the landlord is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 4770557?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4770557?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4770557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10057831-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4770557 about?

The tribunal order states: The application of the landlord is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 4770557?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4770557?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4770557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10057831-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4770557 — Harassment

Order

The application of the landlord is declined.
James Angus Cheffers must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 by way of exemplary damages for breach of the obligation of quiet enjoyment.
Name suppression of the tenant and any identifying details is awarded.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for an order for possession of the premises on the basis that he issued a 63 day notice on 11 December 2023 pursuant to section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 terminating the tenancy because he required the premises as the principal place of residence for a member of his family, being the ex-husband of his niece.
The tenant has applied for an order for damages against the landlord on the grounds of breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment occasioned during the course of the tenancy. The landlord’s application
Section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 only allows termination where the relevant tenancy is a periodic tenancy. This was a fixed term tenancy. The landlord was not entitled to issue the notice. The application must fail.
This aspect was discussed during the hearing and the landlord responded by saying that he would now therefore proceed to sell the property to his niece. The Tribunal reminded him that he still had a fixed term tenancy in place. The landlord intends to seek advice with respect to that course of action. The tenant’s application
The particulars of the alleged harassment are: a) the landlord sent a number of messages making reference to the fact he wanted the tenant to leave the premises pursuant to the notice that had been issued. The tenant found these unwanted and stressful. One of the messages alluded to the landlord’s cousin being the Sergeant-at-Arms for a local Tauranga gang, the Greasy Dogs. The tenant said he found this particularly frightening and unsettling because he has had an uncle who was murdered by a gang. b) Unwanted messages between the parties relating to alleged complaints by neighbours which the tenant felt were ill-founded. c) An instance of the landlord coming onto the property (albeit not inside the premises).
The landlord did not deny sending the various messages, including referring to his cousin’s membership of the Greasy Dogs, however he alleges that the tenant has caused a lot of disruption at the property, being screaming late at night with loud parties. He claims other tenants at the block of flats have complained to him.
With respect to coming onto the property, the landlord says that he has another flat at the same block that he rents out but has the use of some garage space and is therefore frequently at the premises. He said on one occasion he delivered a notice to the tenant and handed it to him personally when he saw he was there.
The landlord’s evidence about the tenant having loud parties was all denied by the tenant who accepted that there had been one instance of raised voices late at night but said that this was not persistent. Law and analysis
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I find that the sending of the text messages regarding eviction combined, importantly, with the text reference to the Greasy Dogs amounts to “harassment”, as that phrase is defined above. I find that the only purpose of reference to a gang in a text message in the course of such an exchange must have been to intimidate in some way. It was inappropriate to do so and I accept that the tenant would have found that frightening and unsettling.
I therefore find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that there is likely some truth to the landlord’s evidence about disruptive behaviour on the part of the tenant. I accept that some of that conduct may well have been historic only but even on the tenant’s own evidence, there was disruption caused to some of the other tenants living at the block of flats. To that extent, there appears to have been some contribution to the level of angst behind the landlord’s texts. That said, the landlord should not have sent a text referring to any gang affiliation.
I award the tenant $300 by way of exemplary damages.
As the tenant has been successful, I have awarded name suppression of the tenant and any identifying details.

Order

The application of the landlord is declined.
James Angus Cheffers must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 by way of exemplary damages for breach of the obligation of quiet enjoyment.
Name suppression of the tenant and any identifying details is awarded.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for an order for possession of the premises on the basis that he issued a 63 day notice on 11 December 2023 pursuant to section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 terminating the tenancy because he required the premises as the principal place of residence for a member of his family, being the ex-husband of his niece.
The tenant has applied for an order for damages against the landlord on the grounds of breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment occasioned during the course of the tenancy. The landlord’s application
Section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 only allows termination where the relevant tenancy is a periodic tenancy. This was a fixed term tenancy. The landlord was not entitled to issue the notice. The application must fail.
This aspect was discussed during the hearing and the landlord responded by saying that he would now therefore proceed to sell the property to his niece. The Tribunal reminded him that he still had a fixed term tenancy in place. The landlord intends to seek advice with respect to that course of action. The tenant’s application
The particulars of the alleged harassment are: a) the landlord sent a number of messages making reference to the fact he wanted the tenant to leave the premises pursuant to the notice that had been issued. The tenant found these unwanted and stressful. One of the messages alluded to the landlord’s cousin being the Sergeant-at-Arms for a local Tauranga gang, the Greasy Dogs. The tenant said he found this particularly frightening and unsettling because he has had an uncle who was murdered by a gang. b) Unwanted messages between the parties relating to alleged complaints by neighbours which the tenant felt were ill-founded. c) An instance of the landlord coming onto the property (albeit not inside the premises).
The landlord did not deny sending the various messages, including referring to his cousin’s membership of the Greasy Dogs, however he alleges that the tenant has caused a lot of disruption at the property, being screaming late at night with loud parties. He claims other tenants at the block of flats have complained to him.
With respect to coming onto the property, the landlord says that he has another flat at the same block that he rents out but has the use of some garage space and is therefore frequently at the premises. He said on one occasion he delivered a notice to the tenant and handed it to him personally when he saw he was there.
The landlord’s evidence about the tenant having loud parties was all denied by the tenant who accepted that there had been one instance of raised voices late at night but said that this was not persistent. Law and analysis
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I find that the sending of the text messages regarding eviction combined, importantly, with the text reference to the Greasy Dogs amounts to “harassment”, as that phrase is defined above. I find that the only purpose of reference to a gang in a text message in the course of such an exchange must have been to intimidate in some way. It was inappropriate to do so and I accept that the tenant would have found that frightening and unsettling.
I therefore find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that there is likely some truth to the landlord’s evidence about disruptive behaviour on the part of the tenant. I accept that some of that conduct may well have been historic only but even on the tenant’s own evidence, there was disruption caused to some of the other tenants living at the block of flats. To that extent, there appears to have been some contribution to the level of angst behind the landlord’s texts. That said, the landlord should not have sent a text referring to any gang affiliation.
I award the tenant $300 by way of exemplary damages.
As the tenant has been successful, I have awarded name suppression of the tenant and any identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4770557 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4770557 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions