What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4982488 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4982488?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982488?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4982488 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4982488?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982488?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4982488 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 October 2024.

Since then, the parties have filed additional evidence. I am satisfied that there is no need for another hearing and that I can properly make a decision in this case based on the evidence given at the hearing and the other evidence that the parties have provided.

The tenant claims compensation, exemplary damages and an order that the landlord must evict the landlord’s tenant who occupies the neighbouring property. The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the neighbour does not cause or permit interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the tenant’s use of the premises contrary to s45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord denies the tenant’s claims and says that they have taken all reasonable steps in response to the tenant’s complaints about his neighbour. Background

This tenancy began in March 2020 after the landlord moved the tenant from another of its rental properties. The tenant said that there was gang activity in the previous housing, including drug dealing, and he was targeted by the gang members because he had taken action against the drug dealing.

The current premises is a two-bedroom house attached to another similar two bedroomed house also owned by the landlord. The landlord has no other rental properties in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

When the tenancy started, there was a woman tenant in the neighbouring house. There were no problems between the two tenants for the first two years or so of the tenancy. In about 2022 problems arose between them.

The tenant said that the other tenant had threatened him. At that time, he was involved with a community garden, and he said that the threats related to his work at the garden.

He said that subsequently he suffered racial abuse from “skin heads” at the community garden and outside the premises. He said that they were acting at the behest of the other tenant. He referred to a weekend he spent with the other tenant at Hanmer when a skin head and his partner were unexpectedly invited by the other tenant to join them for the weekend. He believes that it was planned by the other tenant.

The tenant said that he asked the landlord to speak to the other tenant about the racial abuse. He also claimed that the other tenant gave him food that gave him food poisoning. He suggested that she did it intentionally. There was no supporting evidence for that.

The tenant said that the landlord’s response to his complaints about the other tenant was inadequate. He said that they told him to “be the bigger man”. He also reported her to the Police. He said that they advised him to keep to himself.

There is evidence that the deterioration in the tenant’s relationship with this neighbour began when the tenant out a garage door over the neighbour’s window which she complained about. The tenant was also unhappy when the landlord reinstated a fence between the two properties. That prevented the tenant from continuing to use part of the neighbouring property for growing vegetables.

The tenant moved out of her unit in 2022. The tenant was not sure why she moved.

The landlord said that the other tenant had complained to them about the tenant and that she was “terrified” of him. The landlord found somewhere else for the other tenant to live at her request.

I am satisfied that the landlord was not in breach of their obligations in relation to the other tenant.

After the other tenant left, there was some work done on her unit. Then in June 2023, a new tenant moved into that unit. Evidence and Discussion Regarding the Current Situation

The tenant said that the new tenant was a member of the Black Panther gang which is the same gang that had blighted his experience of being a tenant at his previous tenancy. The new tenant had a boarder which the landlord permits.

The tenant said that other gang members frequented the other unit. He said that the boarder had been in his house and shed without his permission. He didn’t see him there, but he saw him “hiding” in the other unit. He also said that others had gained access to his premises without breaking in. He said that they must have keys to the unit. That seems unlikely.

He referred to children coming onto his premises encouraged by the mother of the other tenant’s children who were visiting. He said that visitors to the other tenant “gave him the eye”. He also said that the other unit was being used as a “meth house”.

He said that when there was a group of people at the other unit, and they would abuse him across the fence calling him a “rat”. There was also loud noise from the other unit late at night, arguing and banging on the walls which disturbed him.

He said that at times cars parked in front of the other unit obstructed his use of his driveway and he had to knock on the door and ask for the cars to be moved so that he could move his car.

The tenant said that the other tenant himself had always been civil to him.

The tenant said that what he was experiencing from the unit was part of a wider situation involving people who held positions of authority in the community. He said that they had worked together to force the closure of the community garden that he had been involved with. The garden has since been closed.

The tenant provided USB sticks which contain videos with audio mainly of him speaking to the camera. He said that they are a record of events relating to this case. They do not record the events themselves. I have viewed and listened to the extensive recordings, and I found nothing of relevance to this case and nothing that would assist the tenant. Obviously, recordings of the tenant speaking to the camera are not evidentially helpful. The tenant had his opportunity to give evidence at the hearing and that is the evidence from him directly that I have regard to.

The landlord’s response is that they responded reasonably to the tenant’s complaints, and they were unable to substantiate them. They did speak to the other tenants concerned and they sent a letter to the current neighbour reminding them not to obstruct the tenant’s driveway.

They say that the tenant has himself caused problems in the neighbourhood. They provided evidence of a neighbour (not one of the landlord’s tenants), who has complained to them about the tenant’s threatening behaviour. Allegedly he has called them “nazis” and threatened their dog. The Police were involved.

The Computer Record Notes provided by the landlord record the telephone conversations between the tenant and the landlord’s representatives from June 2020 to the present time. The tenant claims that the records are incomplete, but I have no reason to think that. They are comprehensive.

They tend to show that the landlord has responded appropriately to the tenant’s complaints. They have spoken to the other tenant and reported back or tried to report back to the tenant. The other tenant has given a different description of the situation. He accepted that there was a family dispute on one occasion that has caused a disturbance and that there has been excessive noise.

The tenant has made numerous complaints and reports to the Police. Including of burglary at the premises. It seems that the Police have not been able to identify anyone responsible and therefore they have taken no action against anyone.

The landlord has contacted the Police about the other unit, and they have said that they no concerns about the behaviour of people there.

There is evidence that there have been instances where people at the other unit have caused disturbance to the tenant and there has been some inconsiderate behaviour. But the evidence does not support the tenant’s claim that the other tenant and his guests have continuously and seriously interfered wit the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy in his use of the premises. There is no independent evidence of harassment.

The landlord has responded to the tenant’s complaints by speaking to the other tenant and sending him written warnings about the behaviour of people at his unit. They have also been in contact with the Police who have said that they have no concerns about the other unit.

Some of the tenant’s allegations are extreme. For example, he has claimed that white supremacist gangs have targeted him and that his housing manager is in league with them against him. The landlord refused to replace the housing manager following that complaint.

I note that the records show that on 4 August 2023 the tenant complained that his neighbours were gang members and drug users and on 11 August that they were blocking his driveway. On 14 September 2023 he reported that the issues with his neighbour were “all sorted now”.

The landlord has been in the difficult position of receiving complaints from the tenant and hearing a different version of the situation from the other tenant and from other neighbours. The tenant has not produced hard evidence of behaviour that would require the landlord to do more than they have done. Indeed, I would say that they have gone well above and beyond what they were legally required to do for the tenant.

As well, there is evidence that the tenant has been vexed by the actions or perceived action of other people over whom the landlord has no control. There is evidence to suggest that the tenant has behaved inappropriately and unreasonably. He has been trespassed from various places including Tenancy Services offices, the local mall and his local MSD office. The tenant believes that such action is part of a wider conspiracy against him. Result

The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Overall, he has not proved, to the required standard, that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the other tenant (and that tenant’s guests) do not interfere with his reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the tenant’s use of the premises. The tenant’s application must therefore be dismissed. Name Suppression

The tenant seeks name suppression. He has not succeeded with his application and so there needs to be some good reason to displace the usual principle of open justice. I find that there is in this case. The tenant is troubled and his belief that people around him are conspiring against him suggests that the cause of his agitation is internal rather than external. There is no pressing public interest in identifying him and it could be harmful to him. I have therefore granted him name suppression.