What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782664 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal supresses the names and the tenancy address.

How much money was awarded in case 4782664?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782664?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10405138-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782664 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal supresses the names and the tenancy address.

How much money was awarded in case 4782664?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782664?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10405138-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782664 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal supresses the names and the tenancy address.
The application and the cross application are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applications are very similar and involve tenant 1 who has lived downstairs since 2017, and tenant 2 who moved in upstairs with her partner and family at the end of 2022. Tenant 1 wants the landlord to end tenant 2’s tenancy because of noise, fights, and threats to his safety. The landlord wants the Tribunal to end the Tenant 1’s tenancy because of breaches to tenant 2’s quiet enjoyment. The questions the Tribunal has to decide are: • Is there sufficient evidence to end tenant 1’s tenancy? • Can the Tribunal terminate tenant 2’s tenancy based on tenant 1’s application? • Has the landlord taken adequate steps to protect tenant 1’s quiet enjoyment? Is there sufficient evidence to end tenant 1’s tenancy?
The landlord’s application is that tenant 1 is breaching the quiet enjoyment of tenant 2 by harassment and discrimination and an invasion of privacy. Most of this relates to tenant 1 recording tenant 2 and her family on his phone, but there have also been complaints about noise as well.
The landlord claims that tenant 1 has disturbed his upstairs neighbours. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. 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 40(2)(c) and 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
The landlord is the applicant for this claim. The applicant for any claim must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, which means more probable than not. Tenant 2 did not come to the hearing to give evidence. I have copies of emails sent between tenant 2 and the property manager, but these are not sufficient for me to end the tenancy. The landlord does not have any independent evidence such as reports from noise control. The landlord does not have any witnesses. The landlord has tried to get supporting evidence from the police, but OIA requirements applied and there was nothing in writing for me at the time of the hearing. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that tenant 1 has breached tenant 2’s quiet enjoyment. This claim is dismissed. Can the Tribunal terminate tenant 2’s tenancy based on tenant 1’s application?
As said, a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. If this happens the usual process is that the landlord brings an application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy.
In this case tenant 1 has made an application asking the Tribunal to evict tenant 2 because of antisocial behaviour, threats of violence, aggressive and loud behaviour, rubbish dumped outside, cars blocking the driveway and using his address for police correspondence.
Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. This claim is asking the Tribunal to resolve an issue between tenants, and there is no jurisdiction for this. Has the landlord taken adequate steps to protect tenant 1’s quiet enjoyment?
Not part of the application, but evident in the supporting documents is tenant 1’s question about whether the landlord has done sufficient to protect his quiet enjoyment. I think it would be useful to answer this.
Section 45(1)(e) RTA provides that the landlord shall 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.
Tenant 1 submitted that he has brought his issues with tenant 2 to the landlord’s attention pretty much since tenant 2 moved in upstairs. He has raised concerns about noise coming through the floors, problems with people blocking the shared driveway, problems with rubbish accumulating on more than one occasion, problems with fights and raised voices, and now problems with threats generally and a threat to assault. The police have attended and apparently tenant 2’s partner has been charged after an incident this year. I do not have any police information confirming what that charge is.
Tenant 1 said he had video and audio recorded and saved on a DVD and he brought this to the hearing with him. This is not how parties are advised to bring such evidence to a hearing. Consequently, I was not able to play the recordings.
Tenant 1 has also contacted the police but I did not have anything in writing from the police at the hearing. There is no evidence from noise control either.
Both parties provided me with copies of emails sent since tenant 2 moved in. I have carefully read everything I was provided with. I can see the landlord has taken steps to bring concerns raised by tenant 1 to tenant 2’s attention. Only one 14 day notice was issued, but there are numerous emails from the landlord to tenant 2 outlining the law and asking her to rectify issues. The responses from tenant 2 seem reasonable.
There are also emails from tenant 2 to the landlord complaining about tenant 1. In particular she objects to being recorded. One of these emails records that the police attended at tenant 1’s house because of an incident in December last year.
I am persuaded that the landlord has taken sufficient steps to protect tenant 1’s quiet enjoyment. The property manager has sent many emails to tenant 2 and followed up. She spoke with the police officer involved earlier this year. She is having to balance complaints from tenant 1 about tenant 2, and from tenant 2 about tenant 1. It seems most likely to me she has been active in her management of the disagreement. I find there has been no breach of the landlord’s duty. Other orders
Neither party has been successful so no order is made for the reimbursement of the application filing fee.
Both parties have asked for suppression. I have allowed suppression of all details because publication of the order would identify tenant 2 and that could be unduly prejudicial to her search for a new tenancy.

Order

The Tribunal supresses the names and the tenancy address.
The application and the cross application are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applications are very similar and involve tenant 1 who has lived downstairs since 2017, and tenant 2 who moved in upstairs with her partner and family at the end of 2022. Tenant 1 wants the landlord to end tenant 2’s tenancy because of noise, fights, and threats to his safety. The landlord wants the Tribunal to end the Tenant 1’s tenancy because of breaches to tenant 2’s quiet enjoyment. The questions the Tribunal has to decide are: • Is there sufficient evidence to end tenant 1’s tenancy? • Can the Tribunal terminate tenant 2’s tenancy based on tenant 1’s application? • Has the landlord taken adequate steps to protect tenant 1’s quiet enjoyment? Is there sufficient evidence to end tenant 1’s tenancy?
The landlord’s application is that tenant 1 is breaching the quiet enjoyment of tenant 2 by harassment and discrimination and an invasion of privacy. Most of this relates to tenant 1 recording tenant 2 and her family on his phone, but there have also been complaints about noise as well.
The landlord claims that tenant 1 has disturbed his upstairs neighbours. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. 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 40(2)(c) and 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
The landlord is the applicant for this claim. The applicant for any claim must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, which means more probable than not. Tenant 2 did not come to the hearing to give evidence. I have copies of emails sent between tenant 2 and the property manager, but these are not sufficient for me to end the tenancy. The landlord does not have any independent evidence such as reports from noise control. The landlord does not have any witnesses. The landlord has tried to get supporting evidence from the police, but OIA requirements applied and there was nothing in writing for me at the time of the hearing. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that tenant 1 has breached tenant 2’s quiet enjoyment. This claim is dismissed. Can the Tribunal terminate tenant 2’s tenancy based on tenant 1’s application?
As said, a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. If this happens the usual process is that the landlord brings an application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy.
In this case tenant 1 has made an application asking the Tribunal to evict tenant 2 because of antisocial behaviour, threats of violence, aggressive and loud behaviour, rubbish dumped outside, cars blocking the driveway and using his address for police correspondence.
Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. This claim is asking the Tribunal to resolve an issue between tenants, and there is no jurisdiction for this. Has the landlord taken adequate steps to protect tenant 1’s quiet enjoyment?
Not part of the application, but evident in the supporting documents is tenant 1’s question about whether the landlord has done sufficient to protect his quiet enjoyment. I think it would be useful to answer this.
Section 45(1)(e) RTA provides that the landlord shall 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.
Tenant 1 submitted that he has brought his issues with tenant 2 to the landlord’s attention pretty much since tenant 2 moved in upstairs. He has raised concerns about noise coming through the floors, problems with people blocking the shared driveway, problems with rubbish accumulating on more than one occasion, problems with fights and raised voices, and now problems with threats generally and a threat to assault. The police have attended and apparently tenant 2’s partner has been charged after an incident this year. I do not have any police information confirming what that charge is.
Tenant 1 said he had video and audio recorded and saved on a DVD and he brought this to the hearing with him. This is not how parties are advised to bring such evidence to a hearing. Consequently, I was not able to play the recordings.
Tenant 1 has also contacted the police but I did not have anything in writing from the police at the hearing. There is no evidence from noise control either.
Both parties provided me with copies of emails sent since tenant 2 moved in. I have carefully read everything I was provided with. I can see the landlord has taken steps to bring concerns raised by tenant 1 to tenant 2’s attention. Only one 14 day notice was issued, but there are numerous emails from the landlord to tenant 2 outlining the law and asking her to rectify issues. The responses from tenant 2 seem reasonable.
There are also emails from tenant 2 to the landlord complaining about tenant 1. In particular she objects to being recorded. One of these emails records that the police attended at tenant 1’s house because of an incident in December last year.
I am persuaded that the landlord has taken sufficient steps to protect tenant 1’s quiet enjoyment. The property manager has sent many emails to tenant 2 and followed up. She spoke with the police officer involved earlier this year. She is having to balance complaints from tenant 1 about tenant 2, and from tenant 2 about tenant 1. It seems most likely to me she has been active in her management of the disagreement. I find there has been no breach of the landlord’s duty. Other orders
Neither party has been successful so no order is made for the reimbursement of the application filing fee.
Both parties have asked for suppression. I have allowed suppression of all details because publication of the order would identify tenant 2 and that could be unduly prejudicial to her search for a new tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782664 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782664 — 14-day notice

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