What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910273 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4910273?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910273?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508028-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910273 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4910273?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910273?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508028-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4910273 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenancy began on 21 June 2019 and ended on 27 February 2024.
The tenant applied for compensation in relation to the behaviour of her neighbour who was also a Kāinga Ora tenant.
The landlord had filed an application in relation to rubbish removal costs, but that application was withdrawn prior to the hearing.
The tenant states that she had suffered psychological abuse because of her neighbour’s behaviour of slamming doors every time the tenant or her daughter did anything such as open their door or go to the car. The tenant says that this went on for two years.
The tenant complained to Kāinga Ora, but the complaints could not be substantiated, although the Kāinga Ora Case Manager was present on one occasion when the door was slammed. On that occasion the neighbour gave the Case Manager a reason for the slamming, and it seems that this was accepted by the Case Manager.
After the hearing the tenant’s sister provided a witness statement in which she says that she was present when the door slamming occurred. She also said that other neighbours had heard and complained of the door slamming.
At some stage the Case Manager asked the tenant whether she would consider a transfer but that never eventuated. The tenant felt that her only option was to leave the tenancy due to the neighbour’s behaviour.
At the hearing the tenant said that she would like another Kāinga Ora tenancy. The landlord provided some information in relation to the tenant making an application for another tenancy. She also advised that a transfer had not been possible because the tenant’s situation did not meet the necessary criteria. Providing another Kāinga Ora tenancy is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is for the tenant to apply for another tenancy if she so wishes.
The remaining claim is in relation to compensation. The tenant seeks to be compensated for her moving costs when she left the tenancy in February 2024. While I accept that the tenant felt intimidated and psychologically abused by the neighbour for two years of the tenancy, it is not clear that the landlord’s actions or inaction had a direct impact on the tenant’s decision to move.
The premises is a townhouse adjoining that of the neighbours. Such living situations are likely to involve an amount of noise heard from neighbours. Unfortunately, the extent of the door slamming and the landlord’s actions were not able to be proved to a level for an award of compensation.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached their responsibility in relation to the behaviour of the neighbour and therefore the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal suppresses the name of the tenant pursuant to section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The tenancy began on 21 June 2019 and ended on 27 February 2024.

The tenant applied for compensation in relation to the behaviour of her neighbour who was also a Kāinga Ora tenant.

The landlord had filed an application in relation to rubbish removal costs, but that application was withdrawn prior to the hearing.

The tenant states that she had suffered psychological abuse because of her neighbour’s behaviour of slamming doors every time the tenant or her daughter did anything such as open their door or go to the car. The tenant says that this went on for two years.

The tenant complained to Kāinga Ora, but the complaints could not be substantiated, although the Kāinga Ora Case Manager was present on one occasion when the door was slammed. On that occasion the neighbour gave the Case Manager a reason for the slamming, and it seems that this was accepted by the Case Manager.

After the hearing the tenant’s sister provided a witness statement in which she says that she was present when the door slamming occurred. She also said that other neighbours had heard and complained of the door slamming.

At some stage the Case Manager asked the tenant whether she would consider a transfer but that never eventuated. The tenant felt that her only option was to leave the tenancy due to the neighbour’s behaviour.

At the hearing the tenant said that she would like another Kāinga Ora tenancy. The landlord provided some information in relation to the tenant making an application for another tenancy. She also advised that a transfer had not been possible because the tenant’s situation did not meet the necessary criteria. Providing another Kāinga Ora tenancy is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is for the tenant to apply for another tenancy if she so wishes.

The remaining claim is in relation to compensation. The tenant seeks to be compensated for her moving costs when she left the tenancy in February 2024. While I accept that the tenant felt intimidated and psychologically abused by the neighbour for two years of the tenancy, it is not clear that the landlord’s actions or inaction had a direct impact on the tenant’s decision to move.

The premises is a townhouse adjoining that of the neighbours. Such living situations are likely to involve an amount of noise heard from neighbours. Unfortunately, the extent of the door slamming and the landlord’s actions were not able to be proved to a level for an award of compensation.

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

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached their responsibility in relation to the behaviour of the neighbour and therefore the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

The Tribunal suppresses the name of the tenant pursuant to section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910273 — Tenancy dispute at 14 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910273 — Tenancy dispute at 14 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions