What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786863 about?

The tribunal order states: Both applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4786863?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786863?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10486288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786863 about?

The tribunal order states: Both applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4786863?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786863?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10486288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786863 — Exemplary damages

Order

Both applications are dismissed.
The tenant’s name and identifying information are suppressed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended. Ms Turnbull represented the landlords. [Redacted] translated for the tenant.
The tenant’s application claims compensation and exemplary damages for interference by the landlord with her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlords’ application claims termination of the tenancy and possession for the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement.
The parties agree that there was a breach of the agreement by the tenant by allowing part of the premises to be occupied by persons temporarily via Air BnB. There is a term of the agreement that prohibits that. In my view it is reasonable for the landlords to include such a term in the agreement.
When the landlords discovered that the tenant was advertising part of the premises via Air BnB, they reacted forcefully and required the tenant to vacate the premises in 28 days. The tenant was for a fixed term ending on 31 July 2024.
The tenant refused. The landlords then threatened to make it a Police matter. The tenant pointed out that this was not a matter for the Police. It was a civil matter for the Tribunal to resolve if necessary.
The landlords served breach notices on the tenant for an untidy garden and for breach of the express term I have just referred to.
The tenant stood firm and with the help of her brother she said that she had taken the premises off Air BnB, and she rejected the landlords request to end the tenancy.
The hearing follows the Tribunal’s order made by consent of the parties on 23 April for an inspection of the premises by the landlord.
That inspection took place, and the landlords found the garden to be reasonably tidy and that the people with whom the tenant was sharing the premises were doing so lawfully. The landlords did not, therefore, seek any remedy from the Tribunal.
The tenant wishes to pursue her claims.
As I said at the hearing, I take the view that the landlords acted inappropriately in two main respects.
The first, and more serious of the two, is that they effectively threatened the tenant with the Police. There is no possible way that the Police would or could get involved with what is plainly a landlord and tenant dispute. The tenant had not committed any offence and the landlords’ threat to involve the Police was completely unjustified. It was oppressive conduct.
The second is that the landlord demanded the tenant to give up the tenancy and vacate the premises without giving the tenant the opportunity to remedy (in this case to cease using Air BnB) the breach.
That was wrong for two reasons. First the breach was capable of remedy. For the Tribunal to even consider terminating the tenancy the landlord would need to serve a breach notice on the tenancy and the tenant would then have to fail to comply with the notice. Second the breach was not so serious as to prompt such a heavy-handed reaction from the landlords. A letter pointing out the beach and asking the tenant to desist would have been the appropriate way to respond to it.
The landlords’ actions have caused me to give serious thought to awarding the tenant compensation. I have rejected exemplary damages as an option because the evidence does not support a finding that the landlords intended to harass the tenant. In my view it was an overreaction to the tenant’s breach. And I would note that the term of the tenancy agreement that the tenant breached, is not one that the tenant would necessarily be aware of. Rightly or wrongly, it is not usual for tenants to read their tenancy agreement in detail.
The Police issue causes me real concern. That is particularly so because the tenant is, I gather, newly arrived in New Zealand, and does not speak or understand English well. The risk is that a tenant in these circumstances may be unaware of their rights and so be easily intimidated. I explained this to Ms Turnbull, and she appeared to have difficulty accepting that invoking the Police in these circumstances was wrong. That causes me added concern.
But the tenant, with the help of her brother, understood her rights and was not intimidated. I don’t accept that she suffered any significant harm that would warrant an award of compensation.
I have therefore dismissed both applications.
If the tenant’s circumstances had been different, the result may well have been different for the landlords, and they should take that as a lesson to be learned.

Order

Both applications are dismissed.
The tenant’s name and identifying information are suppressed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended. Ms Turnbull represented the landlords. [Redacted] translated for the tenant.
The tenant’s application claims compensation and exemplary damages for interference by the landlord with her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlords’ application claims termination of the tenancy and possession for the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement.
The parties agree that there was a breach of the agreement by the tenant by allowing part of the premises to be occupied by persons temporarily via Air BnB. There is a term of the agreement that prohibits that. In my view it is reasonable for the landlords to include such a term in the agreement.
When the landlords discovered that the tenant was advertising part of the premises via Air BnB, they reacted forcefully and required the tenant to vacate the premises in 28 days. The tenant was for a fixed term ending on 31 July 2024.
The tenant refused. The landlords then threatened to make it a Police matter. The tenant pointed out that this was not a matter for the Police. It was a civil matter for the Tribunal to resolve if necessary.
The landlords served breach notices on the tenant for an untidy garden and for breach of the express term I have just referred to.
The tenant stood firm and with the help of her brother she said that she had taken the premises off Air BnB, and she rejected the landlords request to end the tenancy.
The hearing follows the Tribunal’s order made by consent of the parties on 23 April for an inspection of the premises by the landlord.
That inspection took place, and the landlords found the garden to be reasonably tidy and that the people with whom the tenant was sharing the premises were doing so lawfully. The landlords did not, therefore, seek any remedy from the Tribunal.
The tenant wishes to pursue her claims.
As I said at the hearing, I take the view that the landlords acted inappropriately in two main respects.
The first, and more serious of the two, is that they effectively threatened the tenant with the Police. There is no possible way that the Police would or could get involved with what is plainly a landlord and tenant dispute. The tenant had not committed any offence and the landlords’ threat to involve the Police was completely unjustified. It was oppressive conduct.
The second is that the landlord demanded the tenant to give up the tenancy and vacate the premises without giving the tenant the opportunity to remedy (in this case to cease using Air BnB) the breach.
That was wrong for two reasons. First the breach was capable of remedy. For the Tribunal to even consider terminating the tenancy the landlord would need to serve a breach notice on the tenancy and the tenant would then have to fail to comply with the notice. Second the breach was not so serious as to prompt such a heavy-handed reaction from the landlords. A letter pointing out the beach and asking the tenant to desist would have been the appropriate way to respond to it.
The landlords’ actions have caused me to give serious thought to awarding the tenant compensation. I have rejected exemplary damages as an option because the evidence does not support a finding that the landlords intended to harass the tenant. In my view it was an overreaction to the tenant’s breach. And I would note that the term of the tenancy agreement that the tenant breached, is not one that the tenant would necessarily be aware of. Rightly or wrongly, it is not usual for tenants to read their tenancy agreement in detail.
The Police issue causes me real concern. That is particularly so because the tenant is, I gather, newly arrived in New Zealand, and does not speak or understand English well. The risk is that a tenant in these circumstances may be unaware of their rights and so be easily intimidated. I explained this to Ms Turnbull, and she appeared to have difficulty accepting that invoking the Police in these circumstances was wrong. That causes me added concern.
But the tenant, with the help of her brother, understood her rights and was not intimidated. I don’t accept that she suffered any significant harm that would warrant an award of compensation.
I have therefore dismissed both applications.
If the tenant’s circumstances had been different, the result may well have been different for the landlords, and they should take that as a lesson to be learned.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786863 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786863 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions