How much money was awarded in case 4924016?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924016?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10961837-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4924016?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924016?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10961837-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4924016 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4924016 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

The tenants’ applications for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged breaches of it s45(1)(e) and s38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) fail for lack of sufficient evidence to support these claims and are dismissed.

The tenants’ application for orders directing the landlord to address the anti-social behaviour of other tenants in their complex also fails for lack of sufficient evidence to support this claim. This claim is also dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged breaches of it s45(1)(e) and s38(2) of the RTA, orders requiring the landlord to address the anti-social behaviour of other tenants in their complex and reimbursement of the filing fee. Did the landlord breach its s45(1)(e) and/or s38(2) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?

[The tenants] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under sections 45(1)(e) and 38(2) of the RTA.

Under section 45(1)(e), a landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premise they rent.

Section 38(2) of the RTA confirms that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premise they rent.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The tenants say the landlord permits other tenants in their complex to harass them and interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in their use of the premise they rent.

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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The tenants produced photographic evidence of a list of issues and concerns they have in relation to other tenants alleged anti-social conduct that they say has distressed them, caused them sleep loss and made their living environment unsanitary, unsafe and breached their right to reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in their use of the premise they rent.

On questioning, the tenants confirmed the photographs provided in evidence were all taken around September 2023. They explained to me that these issues have been ongoing since 17 January 2023, that they have made numerous complaints to the customer service line, the senior housing support manager, the New Zealand Police, and the Human Rights Commission. They stated they are frustrated that none of these agencies/persons really listens to their plights nor takes any action to address the issues and concerns being raised.

The key issues the tenants raised today are as follows: a. Other tenants are placing rubbish in shared spaces, including in the hallways, which omits foul smells/bad odours that filters into the tenants’ apartment. This includes bags of week old, soiled nappies in black plastic rubbish bags, food scraps and other household rubbish; b. Other tenants in the floors above the tenants’ apartment have thrown dirty human hair out their windows that sticks on tenants’ bedroom window; c. Other tenants in the floors above the tenants’ apartment have been throwing a lot of rubbish out the window at night and it lands on the ground making loud noises that disturb the tenants’ sleep; d. Other tenants next door to the tenants’ apartment deep fry fish and cook mussels that leave a lingering foul fish odour in the complex that wafts through the tenant’s apartment. The tenants also say that this tenant drops mussel shells and mussel juice through the complex when she takes the shells to the rubbish, and [tenant 1] has to clean the floor afterwards to get rid of the foul odour and ensure the complex is sanitary; e. A neighbour is constantly making racist and other offensive remarks to the tenants and these remarks are in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 and sometimes go as far as to constitute hate speech; f. A neighbour regularly smokes dope on the balcony of the apartment next door and leaves her three-year-old autistic child unattended. The tenants say the child frequently comes to the tenants’ place and is aggressive when they try to talk to him. They have had to create a blockade to try to prevent him entering their premise when their door is open. They say they have had to call the Police around three times recently for these issues; g. A neighbour’s husband is dealing from the premise. The tenants say they see her smoking drugs on the balcony as she cannot smoke inside as the smoke alarm would go off; h. One neighbour has been verbally harassing the tenants regularly since 17 January 2023, making racial and other slurs and following them to make them feel unsafe; and i. The complex is infested with mice, cockroaches, and slugs, in the courtyard/safety area outside the tenants’ window. The tenants claim this is from the rubbish thrown over the balcony.

The landlord confirmed that it takes the tenants complaints, issues and concerns extremely seriously and that its Senior Housing Support Manager (“SHSM”) has followed up all of the tenants’ complaints, issues and concerns in a timely manner, both with the tenants and the other tenants that have allegedly involved in the issues and concerns complained off. These other tenants reside in three apartments either adjacent to the tenants or above the tenants’ apartment.

The tenants confirmed the SHSM had come to see them, but the tenants say the SHSM does not listen to them or really hear their concerns and that the SHSM brushes them off with platitudes, but never takes any action. Consequently, the tenants say they have complained to the New Zealand Police about these harassment issues and have also complained to the Human Rights Commission about the racial and other slurs that they say they have been subjected to. They say the content of these slurs fall into the grounds prohibited in the Human Rights Act 1993 and some slurs they say meet the definition of hate speech. The plethora of examples of the slurs they have provided in their evidence do fall into these categories and have clearly upset the tenants deeply and have made them feel unsafe.

The landlord produced evidence from the tenant files for that complex that proves the SHSM fully investigated the tenants’ complaints and that the SHSM spoke with all the other tenants involved in these alleged incidents. In some cases, these tenants were issued with a series of 14-day notices, were subject to regular weekly house inspections and were ultimately moved on.

In the other cases, the landlord has been unable to obtain independent evidence of the behaviours complained of and the tenants involved in these incidents have vehemently denied engaging in the conduct complained off. For example, the landlord has bene unable to independently corroborate the allegations of marijuana smoking or drug dealing from the complex, nor have they been able to corroborate any mice, cockroach, or slug infestation.

The landlord has had confirmed by one of the other tenants that she is the solo parent of an autistic son that has go over to the tenants’ apartment, walked in, and become aggressive with them when they try to speak to him. The mother of this child accepted that she had made some of the racial and other slurs that fall into the prohibited categories set out in the Human Rights Act 1993 and that she did so out of anger and frustration that the tenants have called he Police over when her son wanders into their home. The landlord says this other tenant has strongly denied using marijuana or any other drugs in her apartment, on the balcony or in any shared areas within the complex. She also denies having her husband live at the premise or selling drugs from it.

The landlord says that the tenants of two of the three apartments the tenants have complained about left the complex in September 2023 and only the tenant with the autistic child still resides at the complex.

Further, the landlord says the tenants continue to claim the tenant is engaging in the drug smoking and drug dealing conduct on a regular basis, hurls slurs and abuse at them and does nothing to stop her autistic son walking into their apartment and harassing and distressing them. However, the landlord has proven that its extensive investigation into the conduct complained off and property inspections have failed to yield any independent evidence to support the tenants’ claims.

The landlord also proved it has now engaged a cleaning contractor to clean the complex on a weekly basis and the SHSM issues work orders to remediate any building sanitation and cleanliness issues promptly. The landlord gave an example where the tenants has recently reported an abandoned couch in the complex and the SHSM issued a work order the next day.

I am satisfied that the landlord has taken all reasonably practicable steps to investigate and remediate any of the issues, concerns or complaints raised by the tenants in a timely manner and that there is nothing further it can do to ensure the other tenants do not interfere with the tenants peace, comfort and privacy.

The tenants live in a high-density housing situation, and living in such close proximity to others can led to issues when the other tenants have different ideas of what is reasonably clean and tidy or how much courtesy they must afford their neighbours. Unfortunately, the landlord is limited in what it can require its tenants to do and how they are to conduct themselves or it will be accused of interfering with the other tenants’ peace, comfort and privacy. For example, the landlord cannot randomly conduct drug testing without cause in a tenant’s apartment or force a tenant to take a drug test or focus security cameras on individual apartments or their balcony’s to observe their conduct, or trespass the other tenants from the complex they live in.

The landlord has undertaken to investigate whether the courtyard/security area outside the tenants’ bedroom window can be cleaned regularly by the cleaning contractors, and it will also investigate to ensure there are no current pest control issues that need addressing. The landlord will continue to follow up with the tenant with the autistic son to try to encourage her to limit the tenants exposure to him. The landlord and the autistic boy’s mother cannot do much to stop him crying and engaging in tantrums and behaviour common to children with autism. The landlord has made it clear to this tenant that her slurs have to stop.

The tenants’ claims fail for lack of corroborating evidence to prove the landlord has not taken all reasonably practical steps available to it to investigate and remedy the tenants’ concerns. I am satisfied that where the landlord has been unable to corroborate or remedy an issue that it has conveyed the reasons why to the tenants. The tenants cannot accept that there are some things the landlord cannot prove or are outside of its control to remedy.

I dismiss the tenants claims for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligations under ss45(1)(e) and s38(2) of the RTA. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal must reimburse an applicant(s) filing fee when the applicant has been wholly or substantially successful with their claim(s).

[The tenants] have not been wholly or substantially successful with their claims, therefore their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression

The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.

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.

The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings, but I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication of the tenants’ names is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The tenants] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under sections 45(1)(e) and 38(2) of the RTA.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The tenants say the landlord permits other tenants in their complex to harass them and interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in their use of the premise they rent.

I dismiss the tenants claims for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligations under ss45(1)(e) and s38(2) of the RTA. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal must reimburse an applicant(s) filing fee when the applicant has been wholly or substantially successful with their claim(s).

[The tenants] have not been wholly or substantially successful with their claims, therefore their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression

The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.

Non-publication of the tenants’ names is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924016 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924016 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions