What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4794081 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4794081?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4794081?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4794081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10617072-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4794081 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4794081?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4794081?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4794081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10617072-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4794081 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 th July 2024.

The tenant made the following claims: a. The landlord accused the tenant of stealing and causing stress while at work with an early morning message. The landlord did not admit her wrongdoing – $2,000 sought; b. The landlord accused the tenant of being a rude and disrespectful person - $2,000 sought; c. The landlord attempted to end a fixed-term tenancy agreement early - $1,500 sought; d. The landlord caused the tenant anxiety and stress from her attempt to end the tenancy - $3,000 sought; e. The landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) certificate from a certified independent company - $1,500 sought; 4794081, 4799164, 48190772 f. The landlord failed to provide a legal residential tenancy agreement - $1,500 sought; g. The landlord gave 2 weeks’ termination notice in a threatening way - $2,000 sought; h. The landlord said that she worked for a law firm and used that to intimidate the tenant and make his life unpleasant and stressful - $3,000 sought; i. The landlord turned to up to the property without correct notice in breach of the tenant’s right to privacy. The landlord entered the tenant’s bedroom without permission - $2,000 sought; j. The landlord defamed the tenant’s character by emailing that she did not feel safe living with him - $2,000 sought; k. The landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre - $2,000 sought; l. The landlord tried to turn existing flatmates against him by sharing personal email on the house group chat - $2,000 sought; m. The landlord made the tenant feel unwelcomed when she was having dinner parties and closed the doors to the kitchen and the living area. As a result, the tenant ate expensive takeaway food in his bedroom - $2,000 sought; n. The landlord reneged a verbal agreement to allow the tenant to store some storage boxes in the garage - $1,000 sought; and o. The landlord attempted to move back into the house with short notice period and live in the small office space with her daughter over the Christmas period causing the tenant’s holidays to be stressful - $1,000 sought.

The landlord made a cross-application claiming: a. That the tenancy was not a true residential tenancy but merely a house sharing situation; b. The tenant harassed the landlord with his attempts to stop or delay the landlord from moving back in; c. The landlord had to rent elsewhere for another month to give tenant time to cool down; d. The landlord failed a paper at university due to the stress caused by the tenant; and e. The landlord’s partner incurred costs to fly up to Auckland to support the landlord. 4794081, 4799164, 48190773 Background

The house belongs to the landlord’s father and the landlord was originally living at the address with her daughter. It seems that at the beginning, there were no issues with the tenant signing up to a “flat/house sharing agreement” and being allocated a room. There was another flatmate living there as well.

The original flat/house sharing agreement was for a fixed term starting on 25 th May 2023 for 12 months.

The parties understood that the landlord wanted to move out eventually with her daughter. On 11 th August 2023, the landlord found another place to move out to and moved out.

One of the rooms at the address was left for the landlord which she used as an office every now and then as required.

Other individuals came to stay in the other room as flatmates to the tenant.

The landlord continued to look after the premises by doing cleaning and maintenance work as required. The landlord still believed she was a flatmate to everyone else living there as the address was her real home.

On 22 nd January 2024, the landlord gave the tenant and the other flatmates that she was coming back to live at the premises from 5 th February 2024.

On 25 th January 2024, the landlord gave the tenant 2 weeks’ termination notice.

In that notice, the landlord said that she was not comfortable as a woman living with the tenant and that she had moved out temporarily because she was uncomfortable living with him.

At the tenant’s request, the landlord shared a screenshot of that notice on the house group chat with the other flatmates.

On 31 st January 2024, the landlord rescinded the termination notice after realising that termination was not possible under the fixed-term agreement.

After having the termination notice rescinded, the tenant did not want the landlord to move back in. The tenant requested for the landlord to give 63 days’ notice to move back into the premises and tried to have the landlord trespassed from the premises.

The landlord in turn reported the tenant’s actions to the Police as harassment.

No actions were taken by the Police against either party.

On 1 st March 2024, the landlord moved back into the premises.

On 9 th March 2024, the tenant left the premises after reaching a mutual agreement with the landlord about the final date of tenancy.

On 17 th May 2024, a teleconference took place with Adjudicator Koller to see if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the applications filed by the parties. It was 4794081, 4799164, 48190774 found that the Tribunal had jurisdiction and that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applied. Tenant’s application

For both applications, the applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

I deal with the tenant’s application first. Accusation of stealing and causing stress

This claim relates to issues regarding the usage of toilet paper. Although the tenant used the term “stealing”, the landlord never accused the tenant of stealing but did discuss the usage of the communal toilet paper.

There is no basis for this claim. It is dismissed. Tenant’s claims regarding landlord’s portrayal of his character and how he felt

The tenant said that he was left feeling low after the landlord accused him of being rude and disrespectful. The landlord denied ever having done this.

The tenant said that this was done via a personal message but could not produce any evidence to support this.

Similarly, the tenant’s claim regarding the landlord working in a law firm and using that to intimidate the tenant’s life unpleasant and stressful was unsubstantiated. The landlord had not disclosed where she worked to the tenant. It turned out that the landlord was not employed by any law firm.

The claim regarding the tenant feeling unwelcomed during the landlord’s dinner parties is also without grounds. The tenant knew that it was flat sharing agreement until the landlord had moved out of the premises. The landlord was not a true landlord until the point she had left and sharing the kitchen and living areas was something to be expected in that living arrangement.

Furthermore, the landlord never told the tenant not to come into those areas. The tenant said that he just felt uncomfortable to intrude into their space when they had the doors closed. There is no basis for this claim.

These claims dismissed. The landlord’s attempt to end the fixed-term tenancy early

Under Section 60AA RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy, knowing they are not entitled to do so under the RTA. 4794081, 4799164, 48190775

Breaching this without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) RTA.

There is no dispute that the tenant was entitled to a fixed term of one year regardless of whether it was a flat sharing situation or a true residential tenancy.

I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by giving a two weeks’ termination notice when she was not entitled to do so.

Fortunately for both parties, the landlord rescinded the termination notice after realising her mistake.

I do not find that the landlord knew that she was not entitled to give a two weeks’ termination notice at the time she gave the notice. After she realised that she could not do so, she rescinded the termination notice immediately.

It did not affect the tenant’s ability to stay for the full term.

If the landlord insisted on the termination, I would have ordered for the landlord to pay compensation and ordered exemplary damages.

However, as this was not the case, I decline to award any compensation or exemplary damages for this unlawful act.

The tenant’s claims for anxiety and stress from the attempt to end the tenancy and claiming that the termination notice was given in a threatening way are both dismissed as they are not proven to the required standard. Landlord’s failure to comply with RTA requirements

There is no dispute that the landlord failed to provide a proper RTA agreement containing HHS information. The landlord also failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.

This was a legally complex situation as when the landlord was originally living at the premises, the RTA did not apply due to the exception under section 5(1)(n) RTA. The landlord was using the premises principally as her place of residence.

Their legal relationship changed from a flatmate relationship to a “landlord- tenant” relationship when the landlord moved out to her own rental on 11 th August 2023.

Technically speaking, the parties should have drafted a new RTA agreement at that time. Any bond held at that point should have been lodged with the Bond Centre and HHS statement should have been completed then as well. 4794081, 4799164, 48190776

However, as this was a technical legal issue that the landlord would not have fully appreciated, I do not find that there was any intentional wrongdoing by the landlord. The landlord moving back into the premises with short notice period is also understandable given the landlord’s belief of their relationship at the time.

In relation to HHS, I note that the premises was compliant with HHS and have sighted the assessment certificate dated 2 nd May 2024.

The landlord was entitled to turn up to the property for cleaning and maintenance purposes and there was no evidence of the landlord having entered the tenant’s bedroom itself without permission.

Although I accept that the landlord was technically wrong, this situation does not warrant any exemplary damages being awarded. Landlord defaming the tenant and trying to turn existing flatmates against him

These claims arose due to the landlord wanting to “end the tenancy due to her not feeling comfortable as a woman living with the tenant”. This termination notice was originally emailed to the tenant.

At the request of the tenant, a screenshot of that email was posted on the house group chat.

Although it is understandable that the email can be taken the wrong way by the other flatmates, it did not stipulate further details than what it said. There was no other wrongdoing alleged by the landlord against the tenant.

There is no jurisdiction under the RTA to determine defamation claims or issues with turning flatmates against the tenant.

However, is it correct that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under section 38(2) RTA.

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 do not find that the landlord’s action amounted to harassment. I decline to award any compensation or exemplary damages. The landlord reneged a verbal agreement allowing the tenant a storage area 4794081, 4799164, 48190777

The tenant could not prove that there was any agreement with any of the flatmates regarding storage space in the garage.

I find that it was simply a case of the landlord not disallowing the flatmates to store some of their belongings in the garage.

As there was no evidence of any agreement for storage, I dismiss this claim. The landlord’s cross-application

As I have dismissed the tenant’s application, I now consider the landlord’s cross-application.

The jurisdiction issue had already been adjudicated so I do not consider that issue in this order.

In relation to the claim regarding the tenant’s harassment against the landlord, I dismiss this as the tenant believed that the tenant was right to enforce requirements under the RTA to keep the landlord from coming back into the premises.

To a certain degree, the tenant was in the right to have the RTA enforced. It is also understandable given the contents of the landlord’s original termination email.

I do not find that it amounted to a pattern of behaviour amounting to harassment.

The landlord chose to extend her rental elsewhere to give the tenant time to “cool down”. This was not something that can be claimed against the tenant.

Failing a university paper and the partner flying up also are not directly related to any RTA breaches by the tenant.

The landlord’s cross-application is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee reimbursement

The parties requested for name suppression.

I find there is no public interest in the actual names being published. Therefore, I order the identifying details of both parties to be suppressed.

As neither party had been successful, I do not award reimbursement of the filing fee.