What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4971774?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of William Neiken Salesi Taufa and Samantha Jane Rudolph at

How much money was awarded in case 4971774?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971774?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11078813-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4971774?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of William Neiken Salesi Taufa and Samantha Jane Rudolph at

How much money was awarded in case 4971774?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971774?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11078813-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 203, 1 Cornwall Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4971774 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of William Neiken Salesi Taufa and Samantha Jane Rudolph at Unit 203, 1 Cornwall Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm, Sunday 24 November 2024.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing. Ms Rudolph attended on behalf of herself and her partner, Mr Taufa. Mr Taufa did not attend the hearing. Ms Rudolph stated Mr Taufa was unavailable and declined to provide any further reasons for his unavailability. Ms Rudolph confirmed she represented herself and Mr Taufa. Ms Eder appeared on behalf of the landlord, Kainga Ora.
On 14 August 2024, the tenants applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation for breach of Healthy Home Standards related to a pest control issue. The tenants also sought exemplary damages for breach of enjoyment amounting to harassment related to the landlord’s failure to act, or take reasonable steps, in relation to the tenants’ complaints of abuse from other occupiers within the Kainga Ora complex.
At the hearing, Ms Rudolph stated the claim for breach of Healthy Home Standards was no longer pursued, as the pest problem had been resolved. The claim for exemplary damages was therefore the tenants’ only claim.
On 30 October 2024, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds that: a. The tenant(s) had engaged in anti-social behaviour (s55A); b. In the first alternative, Mr Taufa assaulted, or threatened to assault, a neighbour within the same premises (s55(1)(c)); c. In the second alternative, the tenants breached the tenancy agreement, specifically clause 9 which states tenants must “respect your neighbours peace, comfort and privacy.” (s56(1)(a)).
Consistent with the structure of the hearing, below I consider the tenant’s claims first, followed by the landlord’s claim.

Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages?

William Neiken Salesi Taufa and Samantha Jane Rudolph claim the landlord has harassed them by failing to take reasonable steps in relation to their complaints regarding abuse from other neighbours within the complex. At the hearing, Ms Rudolph stated the tenants seek $6,000 in exemplary damages.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) states that 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) of the 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.
The tenants do not allege that the landlord directly harassed the tenants, but that the landlord failed to act on the tenants’ complaints that other occupiers of the same complex were harassing the tenants.
Ms Rudolph gave evidence describing the various incidents which she says amounted to harassment by other occupiers of the complex. Ms Rudolph was unable to give specific dates but said it had been happening for “about two years” and described various events starting from “a year and a bit ago” to the most recent being a matter of weeks ago. The incidents included allegations that other occupiers placed screws under the tenants’ car tyres, that another occupier rammed the tenants’ car with their own car, and that the tenants had been verbally and physically assaulted by other occupiers.
Ms Rudolph said either herself or her partner Mr Taufa made complaints to the Police and/or Kainga Ora but nothing happened and, as a result, the tenants felt unsafe in their home. Ms Rudolph submitted it was Kainga Ora’s responsibility to punish or remove the other occupiers.
The landlord has provided a summary of all complaints made by Ms Rudolph and/or Mr Taufa in 2024 so far. Between 4 January and 11 November 2024, Mr Taufa made 38 complaints to Kainga Ora. The summary provided by the landlord sets out the actions taken by Kainga Ora, including obtaining security footage where available or appropriate, speaking to the other occupiers complained of, and meeting with Mr Taufa and Ms Rudolph to explain steps taken. The summary provides exact dates the complaints were made and sets out the steps taken and when.
Ms Eder referred me to one event where, as a result of Mr Taufa’s complaint on 5 July 2024 that another occupier was smoking marijuana in the hallway, the occupier responsible was issued with a notice of anti-social behaviour (under s55A of the RTA). Ms Eder submitted all complaints made by the tenants were investigated and submitted the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenants.
I find the tenants have not shown the landlord committed an unlawful act. I find Kainga Ora did act upon the complaints made, and took reasonable steps to investigate those complaints. I find the harassment the tenants complain of was not the result of the landlord’s action or inaction, but rather a result of tensions between the tenants and other occupiers of the complex.
If I am wrong, and the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act, I would continue to the last stage of the test. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) of the RTA.
Taking those factors into account, I would have declined to award exemplary damages. I am satisfied the landlord’s intent was to treat the complaints seriously and investigate the allegations. I also do not consider it in the public interest to award exemplary damages given my findings below relating to the tenants’ anti-social behaviour.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour was as follows: a. On Wednesday 7 August 2024 at approximately 12:30pm in the stairwell of 1 Cornwall Rd, Mr Taufa verbally abused a neighbour and threatened to assault them. As Mr Taufa and Ms Rudolph were exiting the stairwell, the neighbour’s mother slammed the corridor door behind her, Mr Taufa attempted to brace the impact by placing both hands up to protect himself. The door bounced off Mr Taufa’s palms resulting in the door hitting the neighbour’s mother from behind. As Mr Taufa and Ms Rudolph were leaving the carpark in their vehicle, they drove close to the neighbour and their family who were heading to their vehicle. b. On Thursday 5 September 2024 at approx. 8:35am Mr Taufa and Ms Rudolph visited the Mangere Office to raise a complaint against their neighbours. Mr Taufa complained that the neighbours were knocking on his door for no reason on Wednesday 4 September 2024. Mr Taufa identified the neighbour he believed was responsible for the door knocking. Mr Taufa then told a Kainga Ora staff member that he would pick up his guns from up North and shoot anyone that knocks on his door or tries to enter his home. Mr Taufa stated that he is allowed to defend his family and repeated that he will kill anyone who tries to come into his house. The Kainga Ora staff member advised Mr Taufa that he will look into his complaint and Mr Taufa and Mr Rudolph left the Mangere Office. c. On Sunday 29 September 2024 at approximately 11:30am, a neighbour was arriving home with her partner and child and a verbal altercation ensued between Mr Taufa and the neighbour in the hallway outside the tenants’ unit. Mr Taufa then threw a liquid substance at the neighbour that Mr Taufa later advised Police was homemade pepper spray. Mr Taufa also threatened the neighbour with a hammer while holding one in his hand that he brought out from the tenants’ unit. Police were called and Mr Taufa was arrested and charged with assault with intent to injure and threatening behaviour. An Ambulance was also called to provide medical treatment for the neighbour.
Ms Rudolph accepted the summary of what occurred on 5 September 2024. Ms Rudolph submitted her partner acted that way on 5 September because he felt threatened by his neighbour and he was undergoing cancer treatment at the time. Given Ms Rudolph did not challenge the landlord’s summary of events on that day, I am satisfied the landlord has proven the tenants engaged in anti- social behaviour on 5 September 2024. I accept Mr Taufa’s saying he intended to pick up his guns and shoot anyone that knocks on his door would reasonably cause alarm and distress that is more than minor. Having taken place at the Kainga Ora Mangere Office, I also find that act was in connection with the tenancy.
As regards the other incidents, which occurred on 7 August 2024 and 29 September 2024, Ms Rudolph did not accept the summary of events provided by Kainga Ora. I heard evidence from two witnesses related to those two events: the neighbour who was involved on each occasion (Witness A), and her mother who was present on 7 August 2024 only (Witness B). Both witnesses attended the hearing by phone, and both witnesses promised to tell the truth before giving evidence.
After giving their evidence, and responding to questions from myself, I invited both Ms Eder and then Ms Rudolph to ask the witnesses questions. Ms Eder asked the neighbour some clarifying questions. Ms Rudolph declined to ask either witness any questions.
I found both witnesses gave accounts which were consistent with the summary provided by Kainga Ora, and were largely consistent with each other.
Witness A was the neighbour who encountered Mr Taufa in the stairwell on 7 August 2024. Witness B was Witness A’s mother who was struck by the door when the tenants left the building. Ms Rudolph did not challenge either witness’ evidence. Ms Rudolph declined to ask either witness any questions. Mr Taufa was also not present to provide his version of events. While Ms Rudolph gave her own evidence in relation to that incident, I found it inconsistent with the evidence of the two witnesses whose evidence had not been challenged. Given all these factors, I am satisfied the landlord has proven the tenants engaged in anti-social behaviour on 7 August 2024.
Witness A was also the neighbour who had an altercation with Mr Taufa outside his unit on 29 September 2024 and was struck by liquid Mr Taufa threw which struck her in her face, including in her eye. Witness A also said Mr Taufa threatened her, and/or another person present, with a hammer which he had in his hand. Her evidence about that event was also not challenged. Ms Rudolph again declined to ask her any questions in relation to that event. While Ms Rudolph gave her own evidence in relation to that incident, I found it inconsistent with the evidence of Witness A whose evidence had not been challenged. Mr Taufa was also not present to provide his version of events. I also take into account the landlord’s evidence from Police confirming Mr Taufa was charged in relation to the incident on 29 September 2024. Given all these factors, I am satisfied the landlord has proven the tenants engaged in anti-social behaviour on 29 September 2024.

Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The landlord gave the tenants written notices in relation to each event: a. A written notice in relation to the incident on 7 August 2024 was given on 28 August 2024; b. A written notice in relation to the incident on 5 September 2024 was given on 18 September 2024; c. A written notice in relation to the incident on 29 September 2024 was given on 30 October 2024;
The landlord’s application was filed on 30 October 2024 which was within 28 days of the third notice. All three notices complied with the requirements of s55A(2)(b).
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that the tenants have demonstrated anti-social behaviour which has occurred on the premises or in connection with the tenancy. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the RTA, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

Alternative grounds for terminating the tenancy be terminated?

Having found the landlord has succeeded in the application for termination under s55A of the RTA, I make no determinations in relation to the first and second alternative grounds for termination.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971774 — 14-day notice at Unit 203, 1 Cornwall Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971774 — 14-day notice at Unit 203, 1 Cornwall Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages?

Alternative grounds for terminating the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages?

Alternative grounds for terminating the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages?

What was the alleged anti-social behaviour?

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Alternative grounds for terminating the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be awarded exemplary damages?

What was the alleged anti-social behaviour?

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Alternative grounds for terminating the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions