What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953896 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 4953896?

Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $831.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953896?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953896?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11096986-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953896 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 4953896?

Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $831.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953896?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953896?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11096986-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953896 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953896 — net $1,168.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 16 June 2024	$831.43		Rent arrears (to 16 June 2024
Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$500.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$1,500.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Total award	$831.43	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,168.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,168.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Karl Ellis and A1 Property Management Limited As Agent For Scilu Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $1,168.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,940.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
A property manager was engaged by the landlord during the tenancy but did not attend the hearing. I was surprised by the lack of evidence from the property manager given the allegations and issues in this case.
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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. Her main concern was alleged breaches of her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for an early termination fee.
The parties have provided me with extensive documentation in this case. It has taken me some time to review and consider it. In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant claims that the landlord has interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises to the extent that she did not want to go home, would drive passed if his car was there and generally felt uncomfortable not knowing when he would turn up.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenancy started in September 2023. From the start of the tenancy the landlord would come to the property to do gardening and landscaping work. The property is on a hill site and retaining had to be installed/replaced. The landlord did not engage a contractor to do that work.
The tenant was initially content for the landlord to come to the property to complete the landscaping and gardening. She had been told that he would have it finished by December 2023 has he was intending to move away from [City].
However, the tenant gave evidence that the landlord started to comment on the way she was living in the property including the number of pot plants she had. Because of these comments the tenant became concerned that the landlord was looking into the home; there was no window covering on some French Doors.
The tenant said that she raised her concerns with the property manager and was told to “play nice” and that the landlord was very particular about this property. She said that she told the property manager that she was concerned with how often the landlord was at the property, that she didn’t feel comfortable working from home or having people over.
The landlord said that the property manager never raised any issues with him. He acknowledged that he went to the property to do the landscaping work and that he could not afford to engage a contractor to complete it more quickly. He said he was there “a bit” and sometimes for 3 to 4 days at a time in the period from September to December 2023. The landlord did not seem to appreciate that his presence at the property may interfere with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
The landlord said that he also notified the tenant when he would be at the property. The tenant said that he didn’t, sometimes he would just turn up or would say he was coming and then not.
The issue came to a head in May 2024. The tenant’s daughter has some medical issues and other stress factors contributed to her having to stay with the tenant. The change in circumstances was sudden and unexpected. The tenant said that because of the landlord “turning up” and his comments about how she lives in and uses the premises, she notified the property manager that her daughter would be staying until she could work out what to do.
The response from the landlord was extraordinary. The tenant received an email from the property manager, the same day she advised that her daughter was staying, stating that the owner would not allow her daughter to “move into” the property and acknowledging her request to “break the lease”. The tenant had made no such request. The tenant replied that she did not want to break the lease and was again told that her daughter could not stay. The tenant ultimately did end the tenancy, because of the landlord’s breaches of her quiet enjoyment.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, that does not prevent a tenant from having guests or visitors. The right to quiet enjoyment of the premises includes the right to have people to stay from time to time.
This agreement recorded that two people could reside at the premises; the tenant and her son already lived there. That does not mean that the tenant could not have her daughter to stay temporarily while a more permanent solution was found. How long that might be is a moot point, as the landlord did not give the tenant the opportunity to “work out what to do”.
With the involvement of the property manager, the landlord ultimately agreed that the tenant’s daughter could stay until the end of the fixed term if necessary. By that time, the damage had been done and the tenant decided that it would be better if she moved.
The landlord’s response to the tenant having her daughter to stay lends weight to the tenant’s evidence regarding the landlord’s conduct during the tenancy.
I find that the culmination of issues outlined above, amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, to the extent that she felt that she had no option but to move from the property. I award her compensation of $500 for a contribution to moving costs. The tenant did not provide evidence to support a higher award of compensation.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While I accept that the landlord’s conduct was not malicious, it was intentional and amounted to harassment in the sense that it was a distressing or worrying pattern of behaviour that wore the tenant out. The landlord decided to do the work himself, on dates and times that suited him. He commented on the way the tenant lived in the property. At the hearing, he still maintained that it was not appropriate for the tenant’s daughter to stay as the house is too small. The tenant felt vulnerable in her home and as if she was being “checked on”. I award exemplary damages of $1,500.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for early termination fees is dismissed. The early termination of the tenancy was instigated by the landlord, in response to the tenant having her daughter to stay. Fibre Connection
The tenant also maintained that there was no internet access at the property during her tenancy. The landlord disputes that and says that there was internet availability via the traditional copper wiring and that any delays in installing fibre were outside of his control.
Under section 45B, a landlord must, except in certain circumstances, permit the installation of a fibre connection in the premises if— a. there is no fibre connection in the premises; and b. it is possible to install a fibre connection in the premises; and c. the tenant requests a fibre connection; and d. the fibre connection can be installed at no cost to the landlord (for example, because the cost is covered by the UFB Initiative).
A landlord who is required to permit the installation of a fibre connection must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the installation within a reasonable period of time and respond to the tenant’s request or that of a network operator within 21 days of receiving a request.
The tenant’s evidence did not establish that the landlord has committed any breach in relation to the installation of fibre at the property. The landlord actioned the request. While there was some delay, it appears to have been caused by the contractor and access to the property while other infrastructure work was being done on the street. This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The landlord provided evidence from a tradesperson that installing an external venting extraction unit in the kitchen was not possible because of the construction of the dwelling. The tenant did not provide any evidence to suggest that installation of an extraction unit was reasonably possible. On the evidence presented to me, the tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the HHS. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
Each party was partially successful, so I have not awarded reimbursement of either application fee. Overall, the tenant was the substantially successful party, so I have granted her request for suppression of her details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953896 — net $1,168.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 16 June 2024	$831.43		Rent arrears (to 16 June 2024
Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$500.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$1,500.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Total award	$831.43	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,168.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,168.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Karl Ellis and A1 Property Management Limited As Agent For Scilu Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $1,168.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,940.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
A property manager was engaged by the landlord during the tenancy but did not attend the hearing. I was surprised by the lack of evidence from the property manager given the allegations and issues in this case.
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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. Her main concern was alleged breaches of her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for an early termination fee.
The parties have provided me with extensive documentation in this case. It has taken me some time to review and consider it. In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant claims that the landlord has interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises to the extent that she did not want to go home, would drive passed if his car was there and generally felt uncomfortable not knowing when he would turn up.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenancy started in September 2023. From the start of the tenancy the landlord would come to the property to do gardening and landscaping work. The property is on a hill site and retaining had to be installed/replaced. The landlord did not engage a contractor to do that work.
The tenant was initially content for the landlord to come to the property to complete the landscaping and gardening. She had been told that he would have it finished by December 2023 has he was intending to move away from [City].
However, the tenant gave evidence that the landlord started to comment on the way she was living in the property including the number of pot plants she had. Because of these comments the tenant became concerned that the landlord was looking into the home; there was no window covering on some French Doors.
The tenant said that she raised her concerns with the property manager and was told to “play nice” and that the landlord was very particular about this property. She said that she told the property manager that she was concerned with how often the landlord was at the property, that she didn’t feel comfortable working from home or having people over.
The landlord said that the property manager never raised any issues with him. He acknowledged that he went to the property to do the landscaping work and that he could not afford to engage a contractor to complete it more quickly. He said he was there “a bit” and sometimes for 3 to 4 days at a time in the period from September to December 2023. The landlord did not seem to appreciate that his presence at the property may interfere with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
The landlord said that he also notified the tenant when he would be at the property. The tenant said that he didn’t, sometimes he would just turn up or would say he was coming and then not.
The issue came to a head in May 2024. The tenant’s daughter has some medical issues and other stress factors contributed to her having to stay with the tenant. The change in circumstances was sudden and unexpected. The tenant said that because of the landlord “turning up” and his comments about how she lives in and uses the premises, she notified the property manager that her daughter would be staying until she could work out what to do.
The response from the landlord was extraordinary. The tenant received an email from the property manager, the same day she advised that her daughter was staying, stating that the owner would not allow her daughter to “move into” the property and acknowledging her request to “break the lease”. The tenant had made no such request. The tenant replied that she did not want to break the lease and was again told that her daughter could not stay. The tenant ultimately did end the tenancy, because of the landlord’s breaches of her quiet enjoyment.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, that does not prevent a tenant from having guests or visitors. The right to quiet enjoyment of the premises includes the right to have people to stay from time to time.
This agreement recorded that two people could reside at the premises; the tenant and her son already lived there. That does not mean that the tenant could not have her daughter to stay temporarily while a more permanent solution was found. How long that might be is a moot point, as the landlord did not give the tenant the opportunity to “work out what to do”.
With the involvement of the property manager, the landlord ultimately agreed that the tenant’s daughter could stay until the end of the fixed term if necessary. By that time, the damage had been done and the tenant decided that it would be better if she moved.
The landlord’s response to the tenant having her daughter to stay lends weight to the tenant’s evidence regarding the landlord’s conduct during the tenancy.
I find that the culmination of issues outlined above, amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, to the extent that she felt that she had no option but to move from the property. I award her compensation of $500 for a contribution to moving costs. The tenant did not provide evidence to support a higher award of compensation.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While I accept that the landlord’s conduct was not malicious, it was intentional and amounted to harassment in the sense that it was a distressing or worrying pattern of behaviour that wore the tenant out. The landlord decided to do the work himself, on dates and times that suited him. He commented on the way the tenant lived in the property. At the hearing, he still maintained that it was not appropriate for the tenant’s daughter to stay as the house is too small. The tenant felt vulnerable in her home and as if she was being “checked on”. I award exemplary damages of $1,500.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for early termination fees is dismissed. The early termination of the tenancy was instigated by the landlord, in response to the tenant having her daughter to stay. Fibre Connection
The tenant also maintained that there was no internet access at the property during her tenancy. The landlord disputes that and says that there was internet availability via the traditional copper wiring and that any delays in installing fibre were outside of his control.
Under section 45B, a landlord must, except in certain circumstances, permit the installation of a fibre connection in the premises if— a. there is no fibre connection in the premises; and b. it is possible to install a fibre connection in the premises; and c. the tenant requests a fibre connection; and d. the fibre connection can be installed at no cost to the landlord (for example, because the cost is covered by the UFB Initiative).
A landlord who is required to permit the installation of a fibre connection must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the installation within a reasonable period of time and respond to the tenant’s request or that of a network operator within 21 days of receiving a request.
The tenant’s evidence did not establish that the landlord has committed any breach in relation to the installation of fibre at the property. The landlord actioned the request. While there was some delay, it appears to have been caused by the contractor and access to the property while other infrastructure work was being done on the street. This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The landlord provided evidence from a tradesperson that installing an external venting extraction unit in the kitchen was not possible because of the construction of the dwelling. The tenant did not provide any evidence to suggest that installation of an extraction unit was reasonably possible. On the evidence presented to me, the tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the HHS. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
Each party was partially successful, so I have not awarded reimbursement of either application fee. Overall, the tenant was the substantially successful party, so I have granted her request for suppression of her details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953896 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953896 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions