What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4891741 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 4891741?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891741?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10492808-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4891741 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 4891741?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891741?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10492808-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

24 Four Peaks Drive, Wigram, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4891741 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4891741 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names.
Hau (Billy) Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. That sum can be set off (withheld) from the rent payable if necessary.
It is declared that the landlord’s termination notice dated 22 May 2024 is a valid notice and that it ends the tenancy on 29 July 2024.
The tenants’ claim for exemplary damages for harassment is dismissed.
No order is made on the tenants’ claim for exemplary damages for breach of the bond requirements.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. Ms Yu interpreted for the parties, very ably as usual.
The tenants claim exemplary damages for interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises and for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as required. Background
The landlord and his wife own the premises. They lived in them to begin with and then moved out to live elsewhere. They then let the premises on a room-by- room basis. The tenants have named only Mr Huang as the landlord, and I see no need to add his wife to the application.
The named tenants are mother and son. The son agreed a tenancy with Mr Huang in 2022. There was nothing put in writing. For reasons that are given below, I have found that only the son was ever the tenant but for practical reasons I have not removed the mother from the application. I will refer to the son as the tenant and to them jointly as the tenants.
In May 2024 the tenant asked the landlord if his mother could stay in his room for two to three months while she was visiting from China. The landlord agreed and the tenant moved out and his mother moved in. The tenant said that his intention was to move back in when his mother left.
The landlord says that he soon received complaints about the mother from the other tenants. I did not hear detailed evidence regarding the mother’s alleged behaviour because it was not necessary to do so. The behaviour, as alleged, would constitute a nuisance or annoyance to the other tenants. Whether it would (if proved) qualify as anti-social behaviour is open to question.
The landlord wanted rid of the mother and so he told her on 17 May to leave by 19 May or he would serve her with a trespass notice and involve the Police if she didn’t leave.
After she didn’t leave, he served her with a trespass notice on 19 May.
On 22 May, he served her with a termination notice expiring on 29 July on the ground that his wife was moving back into the premises.
The mother remains living in the premises and wants to remain living there until she returns to China on 25 August. Law
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (s38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
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.
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".
Landlords must lodge bonds paid by tenants within 23 working days of receiving them. Failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500 may be awarded.
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. Discussion and Decision Quiet Enjoyment
I find that the tenant has remained the tenant and that his mother is occupying the premises as his guest as agreed with the landlord. The fact that the tenant expected to be able to be able to return to the premises after his mother left supports that. If the mother had become the tenant by assignment of the tenancy, the tenant would have no such right.
The other possibility is that they are both tenants. But that is not consistent with the evidence. The landlord permitted the mother to occupy the premises at the tenant’s request. The evidence does not support the notion that the landlord agreed to a new tenancy with the mother either on her own or jointly with the tenant.
It follows that if the landlord wanted vacant possession of the premises from the tenant (and the tenant’s mother), he needed to address the tenant, not the mother, because she was merely the tenant’s permitted guest.
The notice and the trespass notice that the landlord gave to the mother on 17 and 19 May respectively were therefore of no effect and unlawful. By trying to remove the mother, the landlord was trying to remove the tenant.
If the landlord believed that the mother was behaving in an anti-social manner, he should have served a breach notice on the tenant. The tenant was legally responsible for the mother’s behaviour.
I find that the landlord breached the Act by interfering with the mother’s and therefore the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. But I do not find that it amounted to harassment. I accept that the situation was unusual, and it would not have been clear to the landlord what his rights and obligations were. He did not intend to harass the mother. He was responding to the complaints from the other tenants, and he did not regard the mother as a tenant or see the need to involve the tenant.
But I accept that the mother, and to some extent the tenant, found the situation upsetting and stressful. In my view there should be an award of compensation for that and $500 is an appropriate award. The situation appears to have been resolved, at least to the extent of any immediate eviction, by the landlord’s termination notice. Bond
I am not sure whether the landlord has now paid the bond to the Bond Centre. In all the circumstances I am not minded to make an award of exemplary damages in any case. But the landlord should now lodge it if he hasn’t done so. If he fails to do so, he may well be liable to pay exemplary damages later if the tenant makes another application in due course. Termination Notice
The landlord gave evidence regarding the termination notice. There is no reason for me to doubt the genuineness of the notice and the tenant did not offer any reason to do so. I have therefore declared the notice to be valid so that the parties know where they stand. The notice will end the tenancy on 29 July and the tenants must vacate the premises on or before that date.
I pointed out to the tenant that if they want to end the tenancy earlier than 29 July, the Act requires them to give 28 days notice. But the landlord confirmed that he would accept less notice because he wants them out of the premises.
It appears that the landlord has been staying in the premises from time to time and it his intention to stay there more often. The tenants confirmed that they have no objection to that. Filing Fee
The tenants have had some success and I have therefore awarded the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason I have granted suppression of the tenants’ names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4891741 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names.
Hau (Billy) Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. That sum can be set off (withheld) from the rent payable if necessary.
It is declared that the landlord’s termination notice dated 22 May 2024 is a valid notice and that it ends the tenancy on 29 July 2024.
The tenants’ claim for exemplary damages for harassment is dismissed.
No order is made on the tenants’ claim for exemplary damages for breach of the bond requirements.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. Ms Yu interpreted for the parties, very ably as usual.
The tenants claim exemplary damages for interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises and for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as required. Background
The landlord and his wife own the premises. They lived in them to begin with and then moved out to live elsewhere. They then let the premises on a room-by- room basis. The tenants have named only Mr Huang as the landlord, and I see no need to add his wife to the application.
The named tenants are mother and son. The son agreed a tenancy with Mr Huang in 2022. There was nothing put in writing. For reasons that are given below, I have found that only the son was ever the tenant but for practical reasons I have not removed the mother from the application. I will refer to the son as the tenant and to them jointly as the tenants.
In May 2024 the tenant asked the landlord if his mother could stay in his room for two to three months while she was visiting from China. The landlord agreed and the tenant moved out and his mother moved in. The tenant said that his intention was to move back in when his mother left.
The landlord says that he soon received complaints about the mother from the other tenants. I did not hear detailed evidence regarding the mother’s alleged behaviour because it was not necessary to do so. The behaviour, as alleged, would constitute a nuisance or annoyance to the other tenants. Whether it would (if proved) qualify as anti-social behaviour is open to question.
The landlord wanted rid of the mother and so he told her on 17 May to leave by 19 May or he would serve her with a trespass notice and involve the Police if she didn’t leave.
After she didn’t leave, he served her with a trespass notice on 19 May.
On 22 May, he served her with a termination notice expiring on 29 July on the ground that his wife was moving back into the premises.
The mother remains living in the premises and wants to remain living there until she returns to China on 25 August. Law
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (s38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
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.
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".
Landlords must lodge bonds paid by tenants within 23 working days of receiving them. Failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500 may be awarded.
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. Discussion and Decision Quiet Enjoyment
I find that the tenant has remained the tenant and that his mother is occupying the premises as his guest as agreed with the landlord. The fact that the tenant expected to be able to be able to return to the premises after his mother left supports that. If the mother had become the tenant by assignment of the tenancy, the tenant would have no such right.
The other possibility is that they are both tenants. But that is not consistent with the evidence. The landlord permitted the mother to occupy the premises at the tenant’s request. The evidence does not support the notion that the landlord agreed to a new tenancy with the mother either on her own or jointly with the tenant.
It follows that if the landlord wanted vacant possession of the premises from the tenant (and the tenant’s mother), he needed to address the tenant, not the mother, because she was merely the tenant’s permitted guest.
The notice and the trespass notice that the landlord gave to the mother on 17 and 19 May respectively were therefore of no effect and unlawful. By trying to remove the mother, the landlord was trying to remove the tenant.
If the landlord believed that the mother was behaving in an anti-social manner, he should have served a breach notice on the tenant. The tenant was legally responsible for the mother’s behaviour.
I find that the landlord breached the Act by interfering with the mother’s and therefore the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. But I do not find that it amounted to harassment. I accept that the situation was unusual, and it would not have been clear to the landlord what his rights and obligations were. He did not intend to harass the mother. He was responding to the complaints from the other tenants, and he did not regard the mother as a tenant or see the need to involve the tenant.
But I accept that the mother, and to some extent the tenant, found the situation upsetting and stressful. In my view there should be an award of compensation for that and $500 is an appropriate award. The situation appears to have been resolved, at least to the extent of any immediate eviction, by the landlord’s termination notice. Bond
I am not sure whether the landlord has now paid the bond to the Bond Centre. In all the circumstances I am not minded to make an award of exemplary damages in any case. But the landlord should now lodge it if he hasn’t done so. If he fails to do so, he may well be liable to pay exemplary damages later if the tenant makes another application in due course. Termination Notice
The landlord gave evidence regarding the termination notice. There is no reason for me to doubt the genuineness of the notice and the tenant did not offer any reason to do so. I have therefore declared the notice to be valid so that the parties know where they stand. The notice will end the tenancy on 29 July and the tenants must vacate the premises on or before that date.
I pointed out to the tenant that if they want to end the tenancy earlier than 29 July, the Act requires them to give 28 days notice. But the landlord confirmed that he would accept less notice because he wants them out of the premises.
It appears that the landlord has been staying in the premises from time to time and it his intention to stay there more often. The tenants confirmed that they have no objection to that. Filing Fee
The tenants have had some success and I have therefore awarded the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason I have granted suppression of the tenants’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891741 — Tenancy dispute at 24 Four Peaks Drive, Wigram, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891741 — Tenancy dispute at 24 Four Peaks Drive, Wigram, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions