What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906318 about?

The tribunal order states: This claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4906318?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906318?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10594272-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906318 about?

The tribunal order states: This claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4906318?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906318?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10594272-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906318 — Harassment

Order

This claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The property manager], [The business development manager] and [The general manager. [The tenant/s] attended with her support worker.
[The tenant/s] claims that her landlord has failed to protect her. She cites sections 33, 38 and 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and seeks $6,000 compensation and exemplary damages for their failures.
The situation is this. In May 2023 [The tenant/s] and her three very young children moved into this home provided to her by [The landlord/s], a social housing provider. [The landlord/s] is the community housing provision team of [Social services organisation], an organisation that provides housing & social support for vulnerable [city residents].
[The landlord/s] sublets this home from a property management company. Through [Social services organisation], [The tenant/s] was provided with a social worker [The social worker] who was to provide support to her. She was also given a property manager and advised that for any issues regarding the tenancy that is who she was to contact.
Shortly into her tenancy, [The tenant/s] started experiencing issues with her neighbour (the house is semi-detached, so the two homes are joined). The neighbour, [The tenant/s] understands is [gang] affiliated. [The tenant/s] described her concerns in detail, and I summarise as follows: a. He and his family members would come into her garden and house uninvited. b. They would take her belongings, returning some but not others. c. They would drink in her garden and on one occasion he poured beer over her when she would not drink with them. d. The neighbour would try and hug her non-consensually. e. They would use her phone regularly without her consent. f. He made her niece cry. g. He yelled and screamed at them on one occasion and threw belongings over the fence. The Police were called. h. On one occasion the neighbour took her young sons to his house and then had an altercation with her children’s father who suffered a broken jaw. The neighbour was charged in relation to this incident. i. The neighbour’s partner threw rocks at her window. j. His partner threatened to hit her while she was holding her son. k. They stole a considerable number of her belongings just as she was moving, including all her children’s Christmas presents.
[The tenant/s] says she should have been told that the neighbour was gang affiliated when she was offered the tenancy. Had she been told this she says, she never would have accepted the tenancy. She is sure [The social worker] must have known about the neighbour as he supported the previous tenants. She also says she regularly told [The social worker] about the concerns, and he said he would tell the property team. However she says, nothing was done until her ex-partner was assaulted in front of her son.
[The property manager] says that they were not aware that the neighbour was gang affiliated when they commenced this tenancy. They had managed the property for the preceding two years and no issues or concerns with him had ever been raised with them. Since this incident however they have ceased their sub-letting of the property.
She says that she was advised on 15 November by [The tenant/s] that she felt unsafe because of the neighbour. They took the immediate steps of commencing arranging a new house for her and contacting their landlord (who is also the neighbour’s landlord) and asking them to investigate with him and if necessary, serve him with a breach notice. They arranged a hotel for [The tenant/s] and her children to move into immediately after the burglary and until the new home she had chosen was ready.
[The property manager] also provided a letter of complaint from the neighbour’s partner regarding [The tenant/s]’ whanau’s behaviour towards them. This was sent to their landlord just after the assault.
[The general manager] who has viewed [The social workers]’s notes says that on 9 October [The social worker] spoke with [The tenant/s] who told him she was having issues with the neighbour but at that stage did not need any assistance with the matter. He says that the notes do not reflect that any other concerns were raised about the neighbour by [The tenant/s] that needed to be actioned until the November emails.
[The general manager] is very clear that the Housing Team is quite separate to the Support Team. [The tenant/s] agrees that she knew she was to contact the Housing Team with any tenancy issues although there were occasions she says when [The social worker] said he would pass things on for her because he was her advocate.
[The tenant/s]’ claim for compensation relates to the loss of her belongings from the theft on 13 December and her wish to upgrade her car and commence her study. [The tenant/s] seeks, in her words, justice for this situation. She says she did not obtain such from the criminal justice system and as such seeks redress in this forum.
[The tenant/s] has undoubtably had a difficult time over this short tenancy. Her previous partner was assaulted, and her son traumatised by witnessing the event. She has lived in fear for herself and her children from her immediate neighbour. Her privacy has been breached by her neighbour. Her belongings have been stolen and property damaged. She has had to move under urgency into transitional housing and then into a home some distance away from her family.
I am therefore tasked with ascertaining the liability of [The tenant/s]’ landlord for the unfortunate events she has experienced.

Was the property misrepresented?

[The tenant/s] submits that none of this would have happened had [The landlord/s] advised her that the neighbour was gang affiliated when she was deciding whether to take this tenancy. She says they must have known given they had rented the property out previously with the same neighbours and their landlord is the same as the neighbour’s landlord. In particular she considers [The social worker] must have known given he was the previous tenants’ support worker.
As above, [The property manager] is clear that they were not aware of any danger to [The tenant/s] from the neighbour when she was offered this home.
An email provided by [The property manager] from another member of the Housing Team states that [The tenant/s] was the “second whanau to have been harassed by neighbour (Gang member)”. This was clarified by [The property manager] saying: The tenant (the previous tenant) had initially expressed concerns about a troublesome neighbour but was able to address and resolve these issues without any additional problems. It is important to note that the matter was successfully resolved by the tenant himself and no formal complaint or concerns were filed with the property and tenancy team for further intervention.
Firstly, I note that the evidential standard is the balance of probabilities and the burden of that falls with the applicant, [The tenant/s]. This means that [The tenant/s] must persuade me that her version of events is more likely than not.
Essentially what [The tenant/s] is saying here is that the tenancy was misrepresented to her. S78(1)(g) of the RTA allows the Tribunal to take action in a case of misrepresentation. What is a misrepresentation is detailed in ss.35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and common law.
Summarised however, for there to be an actionable misrepresentation the following elements must be present: a. A false representation of fact (not opinion) related to a matter of present or past fact, not one which relates to the future. This can be overt or by fundamental omission. b. The misrepresentation must have been made by one party to the other. c. The party who made the misrepresentation must have intended for the other party to rely on it. d. The misrepresentation must induce the party to enter the contract.
I must therefore decide whether there was a false representation made in the form of an omission by the landlord, i.e., did they purposely not tell [The tenant/s] that the neighbour was gang affiliated and may pose a safety risk to her.
There are two issues here; whether [The landlord/s] was aware the neighbour was gang affiliated and if so to what level, and/or whether they were aware he may pose a safety risk for a young single mother with three young children.
[The tenant/s] evidence on this boils down to assumption: they must have known given how long they had managed the tenancy.
On the evidence I have before me, that I have carefully considered, I am satisfied that the extent of [The landlord/s]’s knowledge of the neighbour prior to [The tenant/s] tenancy was that the previous tenant had initially had some concerns which were resolved amicably between them, and that tenant remained at the property for two years before they required smaller accommodations. There is no evidence to establish they were aware of any level of gang affiliation.
The evidence does not therefore establish for me that [The landlord/s] had a level of information regarding the neighbour that should have been passed on to [The tenant/s]. I am therefore satisfied that there was no misrepresentation regarding any potential risk.
I also note that [The tenant/s] has relatives who reside nearby, therefore if the risk was great, they should have also been aware. The evidence further indicates that the extent of the conflict here may have arisen due to a clash between these tenants and the neighbours specifically. There is also no evidence as to the extent of the neighbour’s affiliation.
This claim must therefore be dismissed. Did the landlord fail to protect the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
Section 45(1)(e) of the RTA requires landlords to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of a tenant in their use of their premises. I therefore must decide whether [The landlord/s] took all reasonable steps to ensure that their other tenants did not interfere with [The tenant/s]’ quiet enjoyment.
In this situation, the neighbour is not [The landlord/s]’s tenant, therefore they have no control over their behaviour. Accordingly, I must dismiss this claim as [The landlord/s] has no liability pursuant to section 45(1)(e) RTA.
Even had I had jurisdiction, I would have dismissed this claim. I am satisfied that when [The tenant/s] made her complaint by email of 15 November, [The landlord/s] acted reasonably. They contacted the neighbour’s landlord and started finding a new home for [The tenant/s]. They were not legally obliged to do this, but they did so all the same.
All email evidence from the landlord indicates that as soon as they were made aware of the seriousness of the situation, they took immediate action to rehouse the family. [The tenant/s] was given two homes as options to move into.
The evidence does not substantiate that [The tenant/s] told [The social worker] of her concerns prior to November 15 th expecting that he would take action on her behalf with the property team. She certainly raised some issues with him but told him she would deal with it, and he advised he was there to help if she needed it. When she did need it, she reached out to the property team and obtained immediate assistance. I am satisfied that in this situation [The tenant/s] was aware of the differing roles of the support team and property team.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Other claims
I note that [The tenant/s] has related her claims to several other sections of the RTA. In this respect she has been misled by advice given to her as to relevant sections of the RTA. The mislabelling of her claims is not her fault and I dismiss them for the following reasons: a. The claim pursuant to section 33 of the RTA that the landlord has seized her goods. It was not the landlord but another party that stole [The tenant/s]’ belongings. Her recourse for that action lies with the Police and the moving company if they were negligent. b. The claim pursuant to section 38 of the RTA that the landlord harassed her. It was the neighbour that undertook the alleged harassment not the landlord.
I also must dismiss [The tenant/s]’ claim for her application fee to be refunded because she was unsuccessful in her application. 1 Other matters
I note that during the hearing I was very aware of [The tenant/s]’ situation. She is a young single mother who is not used to, nor well versed in asserting her rights. She explained how difficult it was for her to bring this claim and how vulnerable she felt.
Because of this I allowed [The tenant’s representative] to be present at the hearing and provide her with advice when needed. I offered [The tenant/s] several opportunities for breaks to take advice and support from [The tenant’s representative] and other people as she deemed necessary. She availed of one of these opportunities.
During the hearing [The landlord/s] made an offer of settlement to [The tenant/s] in a gesture of goodwill on a without prejudice basis. [The tenant/s] was given 1 Section 102(4) RTA time to think about this during the hearing and was provided with one hour post hearing to also consider the offer after I had explained the law to her.
However, shortly after the hearing [The tenant/s] advised the Tribunal that she wanted to obtain a lawyer and then reconvene the hearing. It was explained to her that this could not occur as the hearing had already been held. She did not accept this position but also did not refer to the offer made by the landlord. Accordingly, she was advised that the claims would be left with me to make a decision upon as she had originally sought.
I make these comments to again explain to [The tenant/s] that the time she was given post hearing was solely to consider the landlord’s offer. The hearing had been held; it could not be reconvened at a later time after she had an opportunity to rearrange her evidence.

Should suppression orders be made?

I consider it appropriate to suppress all party details given the violent interactions described and the potential for a further threat to [The tenant/s]’, and the property managers’ safety.
This does mean that the copy of the order received by the parties cannot be published either as it will be unredacted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906318 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906318 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the property misrepresented?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was the property misrepresented?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions