What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927495 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 4927495?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927495?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10723737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927495 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 4927495?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927495?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10723737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927495 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927495 — net $227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment	$200.00	Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$227.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$227.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for Amy and John Boyd must pay [The tenant/s] $227.00 immediately, as calculated below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment. Background
On 21 June 2024, a contractor entered the premises without notice to undertake plastering repairs following a warranty inspection on 19 June (which was without incident).
One of the tenants was at home asleep following a night shift and woke alarmed that a stranger was in the house.
The tenant asked the contractor to step outside. Once the reason for the contractor’s visit was clarified, the tenant allowed the repair work to proceed.
Frightened by what occurred, the tenant contacted her property manager who apologised She explained that keys had been left in a lockbox so contractors could gain access for repairs (the premises were newly built). The tenants’ key has since been removed from the lockbox.
The tenant said she was frightened for a few nights following the incident as her partner was in Auckland for work. Legal considerations Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. A landlord is responsible for breaches by its agent.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Birch the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. A landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
When a landlord causes or permits interference with a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment, that constitutes an unlawful act.
The definition of landlord in section 2 RTA includes an agent of the landlord. Discussion
Here, there is no dispute about what happened. The landlord’s representative acknowledged the event and apologised for it.
The event as described does not meet the threshold for harassment. It was a time-limited one-off event that arose through miscommunication. But even if it were harassment, the Tribunal would not award exemplary damages because the necessary element of intent was missing; the landlord’s agent did not turn their mind to harassing the tenant and then deliberately set about to commit that act. What happened was negligent, not intentional. Negligent also was the landlord’s action of providing contractors with access to keys in a lockbox without ensuring that tenants were notified of visits.
So, the tenants’ application for exemplary damages cannot succeed.
However, the Tribunal can still consider the application as one for general damages for the breach of quiet enjoyment (see Tenant v Kāinga-Ora Homes and Communities [2021] NZTT 4291558 and Cavanagh v Kāinga-Ora Homes and Communities [2022] NZDC 7003).
The event as described by the tenants was clearly frightening. Awakening to find a stranger inside would be disturbing for anyone.
Applying the Birch principles – nature, duration, and effect – I find that compensation of $200.00 is appropriate in this case. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation for a one-off breach of their quiet enjoyment of $200.00.
As the application is successful, I award the tenants the filing fee.
In total, the landlord will pay the tenants $227.00. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. The tenants are entitled to an order as their application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927495 — net $227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment	$200.00	Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$227.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$227.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for Amy and John Boyd must pay [The tenant/s] $227.00 immediately, as calculated below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment. Background
On 21 June 2024, a contractor entered the premises without notice to undertake plastering repairs following a warranty inspection on 19 June (which was without incident).
One of the tenants was at home asleep following a night shift and woke alarmed that a stranger was in the house.
The tenant asked the contractor to step outside. Once the reason for the contractor’s visit was clarified, the tenant allowed the repair work to proceed.
Frightened by what occurred, the tenant contacted her property manager who apologised She explained that keys had been left in a lockbox so contractors could gain access for repairs (the premises were newly built). The tenants’ key has since been removed from the lockbox.
The tenant said she was frightened for a few nights following the incident as her partner was in Auckland for work. Legal considerations Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. A landlord is responsible for breaches by its agent.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Birch the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. A landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
When a landlord causes or permits interference with a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment, that constitutes an unlawful act.
The definition of landlord in section 2 RTA includes an agent of the landlord. Discussion
Here, there is no dispute about what happened. The landlord’s representative acknowledged the event and apologised for it.
The event as described does not meet the threshold for harassment. It was a time-limited one-off event that arose through miscommunication. But even if it were harassment, the Tribunal would not award exemplary damages because the necessary element of intent was missing; the landlord’s agent did not turn their mind to harassing the tenant and then deliberately set about to commit that act. What happened was negligent, not intentional. Negligent also was the landlord’s action of providing contractors with access to keys in a lockbox without ensuring that tenants were notified of visits.
So, the tenants’ application for exemplary damages cannot succeed.
However, the Tribunal can still consider the application as one for general damages for the breach of quiet enjoyment (see Tenant v Kāinga-Ora Homes and Communities [2021] NZTT 4291558 and Cavanagh v Kāinga-Ora Homes and Communities [2022] NZDC 7003).
The event as described by the tenants was clearly frightening. Awakening to find a stranger inside would be disturbing for anyone.
Applying the Birch principles – nature, duration, and effect – I find that compensation of $200.00 is appropriate in this case. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation for a one-off breach of their quiet enjoyment of $200.00.
As the application is successful, I award the tenants the filing fee.
In total, the landlord will pay the tenants $227.00. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. The tenants are entitled to an order as their application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927495 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927495 — Tenancy dispute

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