What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929803 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4929803?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929803?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929803?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10685353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929803 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4929803?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929803?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929803?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10685353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4929803 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant, Mr Knight, claims the landlord has breached his quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises and he seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment 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 RTA.
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. Background facts
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy commencing on 13 May 2023 and to end on 13 May 2025. Mr Knight was the sole tenant named on the tenancy agreement, but his brother also lived at the premises as his flatmate.
The premises are a ground floor flat contained within a two-storeyed building with a separate flat above on the first floor. Both flats are owned by the landlord and tenanted.
Mr Knight says that early in the tenancy he was overseas for two weeks and during that time his brother reported that the upstairs tenants had three loud parties which disturbed his peace and continued until 1am/2am in the night and one continued until 4am. Mr Knight’s brother provided a written statement but did not attend the hearing. He said that he was unable to recall the specific dates of the parties. Therefore, there is no evidence as to whether they were on a weekend or during the week.
Neither Mr Knight nor his brother reported this behaviour to the landlord, and they did not talk to the upstairs tenants about their behaviour and request them to stop. They acknowledged that the upstairs tenants would warn them they were having a party beforehand.
When Mr Knight returned from overseas, another party took place. He was unsure of the date. He says the upstairs tenant advised that they were having friends over for “quiet drinks”. This started at 2pm. From 8pm, Mr Knight says they started playing music which continued until 1am.
Mr Knight rang the landlord to complain about the party noise. Mr Knight explained that he starts work early and requires sleep. Also, he had upcoming eye surgery scheduled and was conscious that he would need to recover at home for up to 4 weeks and would require a peaceful environment. The landlord confirmed that the tenant called him on 30 June 2024 to complain about a party and the noise which took place on Friday 28 June 2024. He notes that this was a Public holiday for Matariki.
On or about 1 July 2024, the landlord visited the upstairs tenant to find out what happened and to raise Mr Knight’s concerns about the party noise. He says that the upstairs tenant was very apologetic and promised to be more considerate. The landlord says he spoke to the upstairs tenant on two more occasions to check that he had taken onboard the concerns raised by Mr Knight and to ensure there was no repetition of any noisy, disruptive behaviour.
Mr Knight acknowledges that the landlord informed of the steps he had taken to talk to the upstairs tenant and that the landlord sent him a message summarising his discussion with the upstairs tenant and the outcome. The landlord also suggested that it might be helpful if Mr Knight had a discussion with the upstairs tenant about his expectations and the impact of the upstairs tenant’s activities. Mr Knight replied that he did not have time to do that and felt it was not his responsibility to do so.
After this exchange, Mr Knight confirms that there were no other instances of noise or disturbance caused by the upstairs tenant. Despite this, Mr Knight decided that he wanted to end the fixed term early as he was still concerned about potential noise problems in future. He approached the landlord on 2 July 2024 and asked to end the tenancy early on 9 July. The landlord agreed and the parties signed an agreement to end the tenancy on 9 July on the basis that the tenant would forfeit the bond to the landlord, which was the equivalent of one week’s rent in lieu of notice and pay the landlord’s costs to readvertise the premises for let. Notwithstanding this agreement, the tenant wishes to pursue this application for compensation and exemplary damages from the landlord for breach of s38. Discussion and findings
As discussed at the hearing, I consider that the landlord is not in breach of s38(2) RTA and the tenant’s claim must be dismissed for the reasons below.
First, it was not the landlord who interfered or permitted interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, but the upstairs tenant. The landlord neither knew nor permitted the upstairs tenant to disrupt Mr Knight in his use of the premises.
Under section 40(2)(c) RTA a tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. If they do so, the landlord has an obligation under s38 to take reasonable steps to prevent the interference.
The tenant did not advise the landlord of any disturbance until 30 June 2024, when he complained about a party held on 28 June. As soon as the tenant complained, I find that the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with the complaint by talking to the upstairs tenant and asking him to stop the behaviour and be considerate of Mr Knight’s peace and quiet. Therefore, he fulfilled his obligations as a landlord to address the situation of one tenant interfering with another’ tenant’s quiet enjoyment to prevent it from happening again, to the extent possible. Had the parties and noise continued, and had the landlord ignored the complaint and done nothing, then I would find that he had “permitted” the interference. However, that is simply not the case here.
I also find that, had the parties not reached an agreement about ending the tenancy early, the Tribunal would not have grounds to terminate the tenancy early because of this one complaint. Again, the landlord took reasonable steps. Something more would have been required to establish grounds for termination by the Tribunal under s56 or s66 RTA.
In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with Mr Knight’s complaint about noise caused by the upstairs tenant. There was also no further cause for complaint after the landlord talked to the upstairs tenant. In those circumstances, there is no breach by the landlord of s38(2) RTA and the claim is dismissed.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded in defending the claim, he is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details as requested. The tenant has not succeeded with his claim and, therefore, his request for suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee is declined.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant, Mr Knight, claims the landlord has breached his quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises and he seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment 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 RTA.
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. Background facts
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy commencing on 13 May 2023 and to end on 13 May 2025. Mr Knight was the sole tenant named on the tenancy agreement, but his brother also lived at the premises as his flatmate.
The premises are a ground floor flat contained within a two-storeyed building with a separate flat above on the first floor. Both flats are owned by the landlord and tenanted.
Mr Knight says that early in the tenancy he was overseas for two weeks and during that time his brother reported that the upstairs tenants had three loud parties which disturbed his peace and continued until 1am/2am in the night and one continued until 4am. Mr Knight’s brother provided a written statement but did not attend the hearing. He said that he was unable to recall the specific dates of the parties. Therefore, there is no evidence as to whether they were on a weekend or during the week.
Neither Mr Knight nor his brother reported this behaviour to the landlord, and they did not talk to the upstairs tenants about their behaviour and request them to stop. They acknowledged that the upstairs tenants would warn them they were having a party beforehand.
When Mr Knight returned from overseas, another party took place. He was unsure of the date. He says the upstairs tenant advised that they were having friends over for “quiet drinks”. This started at 2pm. From 8pm, Mr Knight says they started playing music which continued until 1am.
Mr Knight rang the landlord to complain about the party noise. Mr Knight explained that he starts work early and requires sleep. Also, he had upcoming eye surgery scheduled and was conscious that he would need to recover at home for up to 4 weeks and would require a peaceful environment. The landlord confirmed that the tenant called him on 30 June 2024 to complain about a party and the noise which took place on Friday 28 June 2024. He notes that this was a Public holiday for Matariki.
On or about 1 July 2024, the landlord visited the upstairs tenant to find out what happened and to raise Mr Knight’s concerns about the party noise. He says that the upstairs tenant was very apologetic and promised to be more considerate. The landlord says he spoke to the upstairs tenant on two more occasions to check that he had taken onboard the concerns raised by Mr Knight and to ensure there was no repetition of any noisy, disruptive behaviour.
Mr Knight acknowledges that the landlord informed of the steps he had taken to talk to the upstairs tenant and that the landlord sent him a message summarising his discussion with the upstairs tenant and the outcome. The landlord also suggested that it might be helpful if Mr Knight had a discussion with the upstairs tenant about his expectations and the impact of the upstairs tenant’s activities. Mr Knight replied that he did not have time to do that and felt it was not his responsibility to do so.
After this exchange, Mr Knight confirms that there were no other instances of noise or disturbance caused by the upstairs tenant. Despite this, Mr Knight decided that he wanted to end the fixed term early as he was still concerned about potential noise problems in future. He approached the landlord on 2 July 2024 and asked to end the tenancy early on 9 July. The landlord agreed and the parties signed an agreement to end the tenancy on 9 July on the basis that the tenant would forfeit the bond to the landlord, which was the equivalent of one week’s rent in lieu of notice and pay the landlord’s costs to readvertise the premises for let. Notwithstanding this agreement, the tenant wishes to pursue this application for compensation and exemplary damages from the landlord for breach of s38. Discussion and findings
As discussed at the hearing, I consider that the landlord is not in breach of s38(2) RTA and the tenant’s claim must be dismissed for the reasons below.
First, it was not the landlord who interfered or permitted interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, but the upstairs tenant. The landlord neither knew nor permitted the upstairs tenant to disrupt Mr Knight in his use of the premises.
Under section 40(2)(c) RTA a tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. If they do so, the landlord has an obligation under s38 to take reasonable steps to prevent the interference.
The tenant did not advise the landlord of any disturbance until 30 June 2024, when he complained about a party held on 28 June. As soon as the tenant complained, I find that the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with the complaint by talking to the upstairs tenant and asking him to stop the behaviour and be considerate of Mr Knight’s peace and quiet. Therefore, he fulfilled his obligations as a landlord to address the situation of one tenant interfering with another’ tenant’s quiet enjoyment to prevent it from happening again, to the extent possible. Had the parties and noise continued, and had the landlord ignored the complaint and done nothing, then I would find that he had “permitted” the interference. However, that is simply not the case here.
I also find that, had the parties not reached an agreement about ending the tenancy early, the Tribunal would not have grounds to terminate the tenancy early because of this one complaint. Again, the landlord took reasonable steps. Something more would have been required to establish grounds for termination by the Tribunal under s56 or s66 RTA.
In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with Mr Knight’s complaint about noise caused by the upstairs tenant. There was also no further cause for complaint after the landlord talked to the upstairs tenant. In those circumstances, there is no breach by the landlord of s38(2) RTA and the claim is dismissed.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded in defending the claim, he is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details as requested. The tenant has not succeeded with his claim and, therefore, his request for suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929803 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929803 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions