What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920804 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 4920804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920804?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11487343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920804 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 4920804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920804?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11487343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920804 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

The tenant sought compensation and exemplary damages for landlord failures regarding the tenant right to quiet enjoyment.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Background

This tenancy commenced 21 March 2024. The premises is part of a multi dwelling complex of the landlord.

The tenants’ experienced issues with one neighbouring premises.

Their complaints were formalised on 30 May 2024 in a notice to remedy. The landlord’s internal processes meant this notice did not advance in the expected manner.

Regardless, the tenancy manager visited both premises shortly afterwards on 6 June 2024 to discuss the situation. The tenants continued to experience disturbances and the first of a series of anti-social breach notices on the other tenants was served by the landlord on 8 September 2024.

Two days later, during mediation, a transfer of the tenants to a new home, with assistance from the landlord in the relocation was offered and accepted. The claims for compensation and exemplary damages were left to the Tribunal.

A new home was provided, and the tenants moved on or around 22 January 2025.

Should the tenants be compensated due to any failures of the landlord?

To make any order for compensation I would need to firstly conclude that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to manage the claimed interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment by the neighbouring tenants (who were also tenants to this landlord). If such a conclusion was reached, what would be appropriate compensation for any such failure?

The challenge for the tenants was not in recounting their experiences. This was done in some detail. The challenge was supporting the claims evidentially so the landlord would be able to use the tools available to it under the RTA to manage, and if necessary, seek an order to terminate, any problematic tenancy.

The landlord failed to respond to the 30 May 2024 notice but having reviewed the events from the 6 June 2024 meeting through to the first anti-social behaviour notice served on the neighbours I accept the landlord’s submission that they did not have sufficient evidence to justify serving an anti-social behaviour notice until 8 September 2024. That means that there was no real impact from the delayed action in response to the 30 May 2024 notice.

Once such behaviour was evidenced, the landlord responded appropriately, serving appropriate notice on the other tenants and identifying a more suitable premises for the tenants and facilitating their relocation there. Any such relocation involves some disruption but I do not consider that in itself, given the history of the tenancy, problems preceding the move, and the benefit to the tenants in what appears to now be a better home merits specific compensation.

Unfortunately for the tenants, the same lack of evidence during the tenancy that hindered more timely landlord action also hinders success in this application for compensation.

I make no order for compensation.

Did the landlord cause of permit harassment?

Section 38(2) RTA requires the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. Contravention of this subsection in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.

The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in this case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”

From these definitions it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”

Based on the evidence in front of me, there are no grounds to determine an unlawful act under s 38 RTA by the landlord and no order for exemplary damages is made.

Given the lack of success in both claims, I must dismiss the tenant application, albeit I acknowledge again, as at the hearing, that such a conclusion is not dismissive of the tenant experience as recounted. It was pleasing to hear they are settled and happy in their new home. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have not been successful, suppression is not automatically available. However, I am satisfied that at the date of application, there was sufficient cause to justify their application. I consider there is little public interest in identifying the tenant details and to retain such identification could be disproportionality detrimental to the tenants in the future. I therefore exercise my discretion to order the suppression of the tenant names and identifying details.

Reasons