What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4957193 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 4957193?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4957193?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4957193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11833569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4957193 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 4957193?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4957193?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4957193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11833569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4957193 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

This matter was adjourned from the initial hearing, where the Landlord’s claims for termination and water rates were addressed. The current hearing is to determine the Tenant’s application.

The Tenant has applied for work orders, exemplary damages, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Work Orders

The Tenant claims work orders because the landlord has not maintained the garden or provide safe access from her carpark to the property. The tenant wants the problem fixed.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The Tenant submitted that access to her property from her allocated car park was unsafe, as it required her to walk across a grassed area that allegedly contained potholes. She further submitted that this pathway posed a hazard due to her medical condition, specifically two spinal injuries, and her use of crutches. The Tenant stated that she sustained a permanent scar and damage to her clothing from a fall caused by the uneven ground. In support of her claim, she provided a photograph of a bleeding arm which she stated resulted from the incident.

The Landlord submitted that the Tenant has clear access to her property from her designated car park.

In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Tenant has not provided sufficient or specific evidence to identify the precise work required of the Landlord, nor has she established the existence of an actionable safety hazard from the carpark to the property. The photograph submitted was undated and does not definitively identify the injury as belonging to the Tenant. Furthermore, there is no supporting evidence of the alleged damage to clothing.

The claim is therefore dismissed.

The Tenant also claimed that the Landlord failed to maintain the garden and submitted an email dated 1 December 2022, in which she requested that the Landlord mow the back lawn (which she stated had not been mowed for six weeks), remove weeds from the flower beds, address disordered stones, and attend to the maintenance of a large plant.

The email evidence shows the Landlord responded on 5 December 2022 via email. They advised the Tenant that she would remind the property owner to ensure the lawns were maintained in a timely manner and that the owner would inspect the gardens following the annual house wash.

Upon considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that The Tenant has not provided current or sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the gardens remain inadequately maintained. The evidence relied upon is dated from 2022 and no recent documentation or photographs were submitted to substantiate the claim or justify the issuance of a work order.

This claim is also dismissed. Exemplary damages

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tenant submitted that there were multiple delays in the Landlord's response to maintenance issues at the property. Specifically, the Tenant reported a cockroach infestation in 2020 when she moved into the property and despite several reports and 14-day notices to the Landlord, they only fumigated the property in 2022. In 2024, the Landlord’s replacement of a faulty stove was also significantly delayed, and once delivered, the new stove remained uninstalled in the Tenant's living room for 10 days before being fitted. The lawns were so overgrown she could not see the outdoor stairs to walk into the property.

Additionally, the Tenant reported a flickering light in the bedroom on 9 July 2024 and did not receive a response from the Landlord until 11 July 2024.

The Tenant also submitted that the repair of the hot water cupboard door was unnecessarily delayed by several months, despite it being a relatively simple fix.

The Landlord refuted the maintenance claim, stating the previous oven remained functional during the 10-day delay in installing the replacement. While the oven door was faulty, the elements worked, and the Tenant retained the ability to cook meals. The Landlord also responded to the flickering light issue within two days and the cockroach issue was attended to with sprays at first and then fumigation.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim of lack of maintenance. There were no photographs of overgrown lawns, no records of repeated reports regarding faulty appliances, and no documentation from electricians about the lighting issues. Additionally, there was no evidence of delayed responses by the Landlord. The Landlord responded to the lighting issue within two days, which does not constitute a failure to maintain. No independent expert evidence was submitted to show repairs were unreasonably delayed or that the oven was inoperative. The burden of proof lies with the Tenant, who has not substantiated the claim.

The claim is dismissed.

The Tenant claimed the Landlord harassed her by attending the property without notice the day after she moved in, on 13 October 2020, and continued to do so unannounced over a three-month period. She stated that the visits only ceased after she reported them to the Property Manager. The Tenant noted she was initially unaware of her rights regarding such visits.

In considering the evidence, the Tenant has filed out of time for this claim. Exemplary damages must be filed within 12 months of the commission of the unlawful act (Section 109(2) RTA). Because the harassment occurred in 2020, the time for filing this claim has lapsed.

The claim is dismissed.

The Tenant has claimed the Landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment by failing to prevent the Landlord’s other Tenants in the neighbouring units from interfering with her reasonable peace and comfort.

A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) 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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 Tenant alleged ongoing harassment and inappropriate conduct by another tenant residing in Unit 2. These were Tenants of the Owner and managed directly by the Owner. The Tenant stated that in 2021, a neighbour named [redacted] invited her for a drink, which escalated into repeated instances of sexual harassment, including inappropriate comments and unwanted physical contact. She claimed to have fled the unit and felt unsafe thereafter. The Tenant reported that she did not approach the police at the time due to a lack of evidence but has had contact with the police on five separate occasions during her tenancy for various matters. She further alleged that the Property Manager, minimized her concerns and misrepresented her mental health to others.

The Landlord denied responsibility, asserting they did not manage the tenancy at Unit 2 and received no formal complaints.

The Tenant reported long-standing issues with her allocated parking space being blocked by tenants from Unit 2, particularly [redacted], who she stated regularly parked behind or in front of her vehicle, preventing access. She claimed that on one occasion, [redacted]’s daughter attempted to run her over. Despite numerous verbal requests, the Landlord allegedly failed to respond meaningfully.

The Tenant stated that one of the tenants at Unit 2 had been harassing her for over four years, including late-night phone calls, swearing, chanting, and shouting about birds. She could not recall exact dates of when these incidents occurred but submitted it had been ongoing for years. She claimed that although she raised these issues verbally with the Landlord, there was no action was taken.

The Tenant alleged that her recycling bin was misused by neighbouring tenants, and that refuse— including food, personal items, and even a large fish —was thrown off the neighbours deck and landed near her front door. She claimed to have reported this issue to the Landlord several years ago via phone, but stated that the Landlord took no action. The problem has allegedly persisted over time. Photographs were shown of the contents of a rubbish bin and container outside the house which appeared smashed.

There was email correspondence to the Landlord dated 1 December 2022 and 14 April 2023 from the Tenant reporting the harassment by the neighbouring tenants. In one of the emails, the Tenant asked the Landlord to provide notices of anti-social behaviour to the neighbours. There was a request of the Tenants’ police reports to the police but no evidence of police reports made by the tenant. There was also photographs of the blocked in cars.

The Tenant claimed the ongoing abuse by the neighbours caused her a lot of distress and she would often go to the beach and cry.

The Landlord submitted that the incident of sexual harassment was a personal issue for the police to handle as the Tenant had consented to being at the neighbours house when the incident allegedly occurred. In terms of the reports regarding the neighbours harassment, the Landlord submitted there was no solid evidence of the multiple reports or 14 day breach notices.

Upon reviewing the evidence, I find the Tenant’s claim of harassment by neighbours is not established due to insufficient supporting evidence. While the Tenant raised concerns about abuse and anti-social behaviour in two emails, they were over two years and there was no other evidence substantiating that they actually occurred. There were no 14-day notices, police reports, or consistent documentation to support the allegations. I also consider the evidence provided by the Landlord’s in their application for termination which referred to the Tenant blocking neighbours' vehicles on 21 May 2024 and exhibiting verbal abuse and aggressive behaviour on 20 June 2024. It would appear there was ongoing conflict between the parties and mutual retaliatory behaviour. The photographs of the rubbish bins also do not establish that the neighbours were responsible for the rubbish. Although complaints were made, the evidence provided—limited to two emails from 2022 and 2024—is not sufficient to substantiate the claim.

For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry

The Tenant claimed compensation because Landlord attended the property with a colleague who the tenant did not consent to. The landlord stated they were there as part of their training. The Tenant the colleague was not there for training as claimed, but instead made hostile remarks, including "everyone hates you," and blocked her from leaving. The Tenant reported feeling harassed, suffering panic attacks, sleep deprivation, and requiring medical and mental health support.

The Landlord claimed the visit was a routine inspection, proper notice was given, and that the colleague was entitled to be present. They denied any misconduct towards the Tenant.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord provided the necessary notice to attend the property, and the colleague in question was acting as the Landlord’s agent. Therefore, the entry was not unlawful.

For this reason the claim is dismissed. Retaliatory termination

The Tenant has claimed the Landlord’s notice to terminate was retaliatory. The Landlord had applied for termination based on the Tenants anti-social behaviour when the Tenant blocked a neighbour’s vehicle then was verbally abusive towards the Landlord.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In considering the evidence, I do not find the landlord was motivated to terminate because the Tenant was asserting a right under Tenancy Agreement. It was motivated by the Tenants abusive behaviour and breach by the Tenant of the Tenancy Agreement.

The claim is dismissed.

As the Tenant has not been successful in this claim, the Tenant shall pay their own filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

This matter was adjourned from the initial hearing, where the Landlord’s claims for termination and water rates were addressed. The current hearing is to determine the Tenant’s application.

The Tenant has applied for work orders, exemplary damages, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Work Orders

The Tenant claims work orders because the landlord has not maintained the garden or provide safe access from her carpark to the property. The tenant wants the problem fixed.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

The Landlord submitted that the Tenant has clear access to her property from her designated car park.

The claim is therefore dismissed.

This claim is also dismissed. Exemplary damages

Additionally, the Tenant reported a flickering light in the bedroom on 9 July 2024 and did not receive a response from the Landlord until 11 July 2024.

The Tenant also submitted that the repair of the hot water cupboard door was unnecessarily delayed by several months, despite it being a relatively simple fix.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The claim is dismissed.

The Landlord denied responsibility, asserting they did not manage the tenancy at Unit 2 and received no formal complaints.

The Tenant claimed the ongoing abuse by the neighbours caused her a lot of distress and she would often go to the beach and cry.

For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry

The Landlord claimed the visit was a routine inspection, proper notice was given, and that the colleague was entitled to be present. They denied any misconduct towards the Tenant.

For this reason the claim is dismissed. Retaliatory termination

The claim is dismissed.

As the Tenant has not been successful in this claim, the Tenant shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4957193 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4957193 — 14-day notice

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