What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4864560 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4864560?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; nant Compensation: Failure to take a…: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864560?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10934201-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4864560 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4864560?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; nant Compensation: Failure to take a…: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864560?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10934201-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4864560 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4864560 — net $4,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
nant Compensation: Failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comf	$4,000.00	nant Compensation: Failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comf
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	36. [The tenant/s] has been substantially successful in the proceedings.
Net award	$4,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,020.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

The adjournment order dated 3 July 2024 sets out the background to [The tenant/s] application.
The landlord’s application, seeking a possession order, was resolved by an agreement between [The tenant/s] and Kāinga Ora.
The other parts of [The tenant/s] application seek: a. Compensation / exemplary damages for Kāinga Ora failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that [The tenant/s] neighbour did not cause an unreasonable interference with her peace, comfort and privacy. b. Compensation / exemplary damages for Kāinga Ora failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically leaks in the kitchen and bathroom. Failing to take reasonable steps
All landlords have a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their tenants do not cause an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of their other tenants. 1
As detailed in the 3 July order, [The tenant/s] experienced problems with her neighbour B from the beginning of her tenancy in 2016.
According to [The tenant/s], the cause of the problem was that B was operating a ‘tinny house’ from her premises. B’s behaviour towards [The tenant/s] was intended to intimidate her into not reporting the drug activity to the police or to Kāinga Ora.
[The tenant/s] said that the problem escalated significantly in 2020. Another neighbour informed the police about the sale of drugs from B’s property. B presumed that it was [The tenant/s] who had informed the police.
In September 2020, associates of B came on to [The tenant/s] property and threatened to kill [The tenant/s] daughter. [The tenant/s] was out at the time, but when she got home, she was confronted by B and B’s cousin. [The tenant/s] said that they proceeded to punch her and threaten her. [The tenant/s] informed the police and Kāinga Ora.
After this, the harassment of [The tenant/s] and her children continued. [The tenant/s] said that the behaviour included: a. Verbal abuse of [The tenant/s] and her children. b. Throwing items (such as rocks and rubbish) at their property. 1 Section 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) c. Stealing from the washing line. d. Following her children, blocking her in the driveway. e. Openly using drugs around the property
[The tenant/s] said that she made more than a hundred calls to Kāinga Ora’s call centre since the start of her tenancy.
Kāinga Ora re-located B in October 2021.
Ms Perese said that: a. Up to mid-2020 they had received only a handful of complaints about B, and only one of those complaints was from [The tenant/s]. The number of complaints increased significantly in late 2020 and into 2021. b. At that time Kāinga Ora had a policy of “sustaining tenancies”. In response to the complaints, they met with B and sought to encourage her to meet her obligations as a Kāinga Ora tenant. c. Ultimately Kāinga Ora resolved the problem by moving B on.
It has been acknowledged in previous Tenancy Tribunal decisions that Kāinga Ora faces particular difficulties as a landlord. Its tenants are often in close proximity to each other. Some of its tenants have issues with substance abuse, violence, and anti-social behaviour. It has a duty to provide housing to people in need.
Those difficulties do not remove Kāinga Ora’s obligation as a landlord to take “all reasonable steps”.
In this instance, I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora failed to meet that obligation in terms of their response to the incident in September 2020.
[The tenant/s] allegation that B assaulted her and threatened her, and that B’s associates threatened to kill her daughter, required a proportionate response from Kāinga Ora. B’s actions, if proven, would certainly be grounds for termination of her tenancy. Kāinga Ora could not ‘take sides’ in the dispute, but it could (and should) have brought an application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking termination of B’s tenancy. Their failure to do so meant that [The tenant/s] and her family lived in fear for another year, in addition to being exposed to further appalling behaviour by B. The impact of this on [The tenant/s] and her children is thoroughly documented in [The tenant/s] application.
A breach of this obligation is not declared to be an unlawful act in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Therefore, exemplary damages are not available for this type of breach. 2
The Tribunal can make an award of compensation.
In considering an appropriate award of compensation I have reviewed recent decisions from the Tenancy Tribunal involving Kāinga Ora and other social housing providers. The decisions show that the Tribunal has regard to the following factors: a. The nature of the interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy. The Tribunal usually awards higher amounts if the behaviour is directed at the tenant (such as threats or verbal abuse) rather than the tenant just being passively exposed to disruptive behaviour (such as parties, domestic abuse, or drug use). 3 b. The length of time that the tenant has been exposed to the disruptive behaviour. c. The action that Kāinga Ora took in response to the tenant’s complaints. 4 d. The extent that the tenant’s own behaviour has caused or aggravated the situation. 5
In this instance: a. The behaviour included very serious threats, and violence, as well as general disruptive behaviour. b. Although there is some evidence of disruptive and intimidating behaviour before September 2020, the relevant period from a compensation perspective is from September 2020 until October 2021. c. Kāinga Ora’s response was guided by its ‘preserving tenancies’ policy and therefore it did not seek termination of B’s tenancy. However, it did ultimately move B out of the neighbourhood. 2 Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora [2022] NZDC 7003 3 Tenant v Kāinga Ora [2024] NZTT 4821977, contrasting Cavanagh 4 Ibid. The Tribunal noted that Kāinga Ora’s response of sending multiple letters to the offending tenant and requesting meetings was ineffective and simply allowed the opportunity for the behaviour to continue. 5 See, for example, Brennan v Tamaki Regeneration Ltd [2022] NZTT 4331994 and Tenant v Kāinga Ora [2024] 4767263 d. [The tenant/s] did not cause or aggravate the situation.
Having regard to these factors and to the compensation awarded in previous Tenancy Tribunal decisions, I will award $4,000.00. Maintenance
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 6
[The tenant/s] raised two maintenance issues: a. Leaking pipe in the kitchen. b. Leak in bathroom causing damage to floor. a. Leaking pipe in kitchen
The incident occurred in or around August 2019.
The waste pipe underneath the kitchen sink came away from the wall, allowing a substantial amount of water to flood onto the kitchen floor.
With the assistance of neighbours, [The tenant/s] was able to stop the flooding by turning off the main water supply to all of the houses. She contacted Kāinga Ora,
Kāinga Ora arranged for a plumber, who attended promptly and repaired the problem.
[The tenant/s] said that Kāinga Ora were slow with assisting with the clean up. Kāinga Ora arranged for a carpet contractor to dry out the carpets with large fans and de-humidifiers.
Kāinga Ora told [The tenant/s] that they would not replace the water damaged kitchen cupboard, or the flooring / carpet, because at that time it seemed likely that this was going to be a short-term tenancy. 6 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
I am satisfied that: a. Kāinga Ora responded promptly and appropriately when the incident occurred. b. There is no proven loss of amenity from the water damage that is significant enough to warrant an award of compensation. b. Leak from back of toilet
[The tenant/s] said that Kāinga Ora has attempted to repair this issue multiple times, but the repairs seemed to only involve attempts to secure an O-ring rather than solving the actual leak.
By October 2023 the leak had compromised the integrity of the flooring in the bathroom, and water was coming down into the rooms underneath. This is shown in photographs in a Kāinga Ora property inspection report.
Kāinga Ora’s contractor put plywood over the worse affected areas. At this time Kāinga Ora had given notice to end the tenancy. They decided to delay more substantial repairs until after [The tenant/s] vacated the property.
I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora responded appropriately to the leak complaints and reasonably understood that their plumbers had addressed the problem as it came up. When the more serious issue of floor damage became apparent, Kāinga Ora arranged for temporary / make safe repairs. Again, it was reasonable for Kāinga Ora to delay more substantial repairs given that it had issued what it believed to be a valid termination notice, and pursuant to that notice they would have had possession of the premises in early 2024.
Therefore I find that there is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been substantially successful in the proceedings. I will award [The tenant/s] the filing fee 7 and grant her request for name suppression. 8 7 Section 102(4) RTA 8 Section 95A(1) RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4864560 — net $4,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
nant Compensation: Failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comf	$4,000.00	nant Compensation: Failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comf
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	36. [The tenant/s] has been substantially successful in the proceedings.
Net award	$4,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,020.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

The adjournment order dated 3 July 2024 sets out the background to [The tenant/s] application.
The landlord’s application, seeking a possession order, was resolved by an agreement between [The tenant/s] and Kāinga Ora.
The other parts of [The tenant/s] application seek: a. Compensation / exemplary damages for Kāinga Ora failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that [The tenant/s] neighbour did not cause an unreasonable interference with her peace, comfort and privacy. b. Compensation / exemplary damages for Kāinga Ora failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically leaks in the kitchen and bathroom. Failing to take reasonable steps
All landlords have a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their tenants do not cause an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of their other tenants. 1
As detailed in the 3 July order, [The tenant/s] experienced problems with her neighbour B from the beginning of her tenancy in 2016.
According to [The tenant/s], the cause of the problem was that B was operating a ‘tinny house’ from her premises. B’s behaviour towards [The tenant/s] was intended to intimidate her into not reporting the drug activity to the police or to Kāinga Ora.
[The tenant/s] said that the problem escalated significantly in 2020. Another neighbour informed the police about the sale of drugs from B’s property. B presumed that it was [The tenant/s] who had informed the police.
In September 2020, associates of B came on to [The tenant/s] property and threatened to kill [The tenant/s] daughter. [The tenant/s] was out at the time, but when she got home, she was confronted by B and B’s cousin. [The tenant/s] said that they proceeded to punch her and threaten her. [The tenant/s] informed the police and Kāinga Ora.
After this, the harassment of [The tenant/s] and her children continued. [The tenant/s] said that the behaviour included: a. Verbal abuse of [The tenant/s] and her children. b. Throwing items (such as rocks and rubbish) at their property. 1 Section 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) c. Stealing from the washing line. d. Following her children, blocking her in the driveway. e. Openly using drugs around the property
[The tenant/s] said that she made more than a hundred calls to Kāinga Ora’s call centre since the start of her tenancy.
Kāinga Ora re-located B in October 2021.
Ms Perese said that: a. Up to mid-2020 they had received only a handful of complaints about B, and only one of those complaints was from [The tenant/s]. The number of complaints increased significantly in late 2020 and into 2021. b. At that time Kāinga Ora had a policy of “sustaining tenancies”. In response to the complaints, they met with B and sought to encourage her to meet her obligations as a Kāinga Ora tenant. c. Ultimately Kāinga Ora resolved the problem by moving B on.
It has been acknowledged in previous Tenancy Tribunal decisions that Kāinga Ora faces particular difficulties as a landlord. Its tenants are often in close proximity to each other. Some of its tenants have issues with substance abuse, violence, and anti-social behaviour. It has a duty to provide housing to people in need.
Those difficulties do not remove Kāinga Ora’s obligation as a landlord to take “all reasonable steps”.
In this instance, I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora failed to meet that obligation in terms of their response to the incident in September 2020.
[The tenant/s] allegation that B assaulted her and threatened her, and that B’s associates threatened to kill her daughter, required a proportionate response from Kāinga Ora. B’s actions, if proven, would certainly be grounds for termination of her tenancy. Kāinga Ora could not ‘take sides’ in the dispute, but it could (and should) have brought an application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking termination of B’s tenancy. Their failure to do so meant that [The tenant/s] and her family lived in fear for another year, in addition to being exposed to further appalling behaviour by B. The impact of this on [The tenant/s] and her children is thoroughly documented in [The tenant/s] application.
A breach of this obligation is not declared to be an unlawful act in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Therefore, exemplary damages are not available for this type of breach. 2
The Tribunal can make an award of compensation.
In considering an appropriate award of compensation I have reviewed recent decisions from the Tenancy Tribunal involving Kāinga Ora and other social housing providers. The decisions show that the Tribunal has regard to the following factors: a. The nature of the interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy. The Tribunal usually awards higher amounts if the behaviour is directed at the tenant (such as threats or verbal abuse) rather than the tenant just being passively exposed to disruptive behaviour (such as parties, domestic abuse, or drug use). 3 b. The length of time that the tenant has been exposed to the disruptive behaviour. c. The action that Kāinga Ora took in response to the tenant’s complaints. 4 d. The extent that the tenant’s own behaviour has caused or aggravated the situation. 5
In this instance: a. The behaviour included very serious threats, and violence, as well as general disruptive behaviour. b. Although there is some evidence of disruptive and intimidating behaviour before September 2020, the relevant period from a compensation perspective is from September 2020 until October 2021. c. Kāinga Ora’s response was guided by its ‘preserving tenancies’ policy and therefore it did not seek termination of B’s tenancy. However, it did ultimately move B out of the neighbourhood. 2 Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora [2022] NZDC 7003 3 Tenant v Kāinga Ora [2024] NZTT 4821977, contrasting Cavanagh 4 Ibid. The Tribunal noted that Kāinga Ora’s response of sending multiple letters to the offending tenant and requesting meetings was ineffective and simply allowed the opportunity for the behaviour to continue. 5 See, for example, Brennan v Tamaki Regeneration Ltd [2022] NZTT 4331994 and Tenant v Kāinga Ora [2024] 4767263 d. [The tenant/s] did not cause or aggravate the situation.
Having regard to these factors and to the compensation awarded in previous Tenancy Tribunal decisions, I will award $4,000.00. Maintenance
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 6
[The tenant/s] raised two maintenance issues: a. Leaking pipe in the kitchen. b. Leak in bathroom causing damage to floor. a. Leaking pipe in kitchen
The incident occurred in or around August 2019.
The waste pipe underneath the kitchen sink came away from the wall, allowing a substantial amount of water to flood onto the kitchen floor.
With the assistance of neighbours, [The tenant/s] was able to stop the flooding by turning off the main water supply to all of the houses. She contacted Kāinga Ora,
Kāinga Ora arranged for a plumber, who attended promptly and repaired the problem.
[The tenant/s] said that Kāinga Ora were slow with assisting with the clean up. Kāinga Ora arranged for a carpet contractor to dry out the carpets with large fans and de-humidifiers.
Kāinga Ora told [The tenant/s] that they would not replace the water damaged kitchen cupboard, or the flooring / carpet, because at that time it seemed likely that this was going to be a short-term tenancy. 6 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
I am satisfied that: a. Kāinga Ora responded promptly and appropriately when the incident occurred. b. There is no proven loss of amenity from the water damage that is significant enough to warrant an award of compensation. b. Leak from back of toilet
[The tenant/s] said that Kāinga Ora has attempted to repair this issue multiple times, but the repairs seemed to only involve attempts to secure an O-ring rather than solving the actual leak.
By October 2023 the leak had compromised the integrity of the flooring in the bathroom, and water was coming down into the rooms underneath. This is shown in photographs in a Kāinga Ora property inspection report.
Kāinga Ora’s contractor put plywood over the worse affected areas. At this time Kāinga Ora had given notice to end the tenancy. They decided to delay more substantial repairs until after [The tenant/s] vacated the property.
I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora responded appropriately to the leak complaints and reasonably understood that their plumbers had addressed the problem as it came up. When the more serious issue of floor damage became apparent, Kāinga Ora arranged for temporary / make safe repairs. Again, it was reasonable for Kāinga Ora to delay more substantial repairs given that it had issued what it believed to be a valid termination notice, and pursuant to that notice they would have had possession of the premises in early 2024.
Therefore I find that there is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been substantially successful in the proceedings. I will award [The tenant/s] the filing fee 7 and grant her request for name suppression. 8 7 Section 102(4) RTA 8 Section 95A(1) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864560 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864560 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions