How much money was awarded in case 4983209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983209?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11321519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4983209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983209?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11321519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983209 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983209 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.

The following complaints are dismissed: a. Unlawful discrimination. b. The landlord provided false or misleading information. c. The landlord breached quiet enjoyment. d. The landlord failed to respond to the request for consent within 21 days after receiving the request.

The following complaints were withdrawn: a. The landlord withheld consent unreasonably. b. The landlord failed to meet the safety obligation. c. Unlawful entry by the landlord.

By consent, [The tenant/s] can install a removable gate with the conditions below: a. Dimensions: The gate would be no more than one metre in height, with a length of 330 centimetres and a width of 46 centimetres. Minor variations in height (up to three centimetres) were acceptable, provided the gate did not exceed one metre in total height. b. Installation: The gate would not be screwed or bolted into the existing fence or property, ensuring it remained a removable and non-permanent structure. c. Placement: The gate would be placed in the same location as the temporary mesh barrier [The tenant/s] had previously placed, between the existing black fence and the boundary fence on the right side of the property.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant, [The tenant/s], attended the hearing and was supported by [redacted].

Ms Mituran-Abuid and Mr Temu attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Introduction

The dispute between [The tenant/s] and Kāinga Ora (“KO”) arose from [The tenant/s] request to install a gate at her property to address concerns about trespassers entering her driveway. [The tenant/s], who has disabilities, argued that the gate was necessary for her safety and mental well-being. She initially installed a temporary mesh barrier made from an old bedstead, which she painted black to blend with the existing fence. [The tenant/s] sought KO’s consent for this modification, which she considered a minor change under s42B of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”).

KO, however, viewed the mesh barrier as an unauthorised modification and issued a breach notice, demanding its removal. Despite [The tenant/s] efforts to propose alternative solutions, including offering to fund the gate herself or seek external funding, KO refused to grant consent for the gate. [The tenant/s] alleged that KO’s refusal and handling of the matter amounted to unlawful discrimination and a breach of her quiet enjoyment of the property. She also claimed that KO provided false and misleading information during their communications.

The parties reached an agreement during the hearing regarding the installation of a removable gate, with specific dimensions and conditions. However, [The tenant/s] maintained that KO had breached Section 42A(3) of the RTA by failing to respond to her request for consent within the required 21-day period,

[The tenant/s] complaints: a. Unlawful discrimination – section 12. b. The landlord provided false or misleading information – section 13A c. The landlord breached her quiet enjoyment – section 38 d. The landlord failed to respond to the request for consent within 21 days after receiving the request – section 42B(3) e. The landlord withheld consent unreasonably for a gate/fence – Section 42A(1). f. The landlord failed to meet the safety obligation – section 45(1A) g. Unlawful entry by the landlord – section 48(4A) Withdraw of complaint relating to unlawful entry by the landlord

[The tenant/s] withdrew her complaint relating to unlawful entry by the landlord because Kāinga Ora had rectified the issue following her initial concerns. She explained that after raising the matter, Kāinga Ora had since been careful to notify her in advance of visits and ensured that a female staff member accompanied any male representatives, as per her request due to her disabilities. [The tenant/s] acknowledged that this corrective action addressed her concerns, and she no longer wished to pursue this aspect of her complaint.

[The tenant/s] withdrawal application is granted. Complaints concerning discrimination, false or misleading information and breach of quiet enjoyment are dismissed.

After carefully reviewing the evidence and submissions, I find that [The tenant/s] has not discharged the burden of proof in relation to her claims of unlawful discrimination, provision of false or misleading information, and interference with her quiet enjoyment. While [The tenant/s] has raised concerns about Kāinga Ora’s handling of the matter, the evidence does not establish that their actions amounted to unlawful discrimination or the provision of false information under the Residential Tenancies Act.

In relation to the claim of unlawful discrimination, [The tenant/s] argued that Kāinga Ora failed to accommodate her disabilities and safety needs. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that Kāinga Ora’s refusal to consent to the gate was based on discriminatory grounds. While I acknowledge [The tenant/s] vulnerabilities and the impact of her disabilities, the refusal appeared to be based on their interpretation of the tenancy agreement and their concerns about unauthorised modifications, rather than any discriminatory intent.

Regarding the claim of false or misleading information, [The tenant/s] alleged that Kāinga Ora provided inaccurate statements during meetings and in written correspondence. While there were disagreements about the content of communications, the evidence does not establish that Kāinga Ora deliberately provided false or misleading information. Differences in perception or interpretation of statements do not necessarily amount to a breach under Section 13A of the Act. Furthermore, [The tenant/s] complaint did not relate to the contents of the tenancy agreement, which was intended to be governed by section 13A of the Act.

As for the claim of interference with quiet enjoyment, [The tenant/s] argued that Kāinga Ora’s actions, including their communication and refusal to consent to install a gate, disrupted her peaceful use of the property. While I accept that the dispute caused [The tenant/s] stress, the evidence does not show that Kāinga Ora’s actions reached the threshold required to constitute a breach of quiet enjoyment under Section 38(3) of the Act. The communication between the parties, while challenging, was focused on resolving the issue of the gate installation and did not amount to harassment or unreasonable interference.

Each of the complaints under this heading is dismissed. Complaints regarding the landlord’s unreasonable withholding of consent for a gate/ fence and the landlord’s failure to meet safety obligations.

During the hearing, the parties reached a resolution regarding the installation of a removable gate or fence at [The tenant/s] property. [The tenant/s] explained that the gate was necessary to address her safety concerns due to repeated trespassing incidents. She proposed a specific type of removable gate, which she had researched and provided details about, including its dimensions and design. [The tenant/s] emphasised that the gate would not be screwed into the existing property, ensuring it remained a minor change under section 42B of the Act.

Kāinga Ora, represented by Ms Mituran-Abuid, opposed the installation of the gate at the commencement of the hearing but, during the hearing, agreed to consent to a removable gate under specific conditions. The agreed conditions included: a. Dimensions: The gate would be no more than one metre in height, with a length of 330 centimetres and a width of 46 centimetres. Minor variations in height (up to three centimetres) were acceptable, provided the gate did not exceed one metre in total height. b. Installation: The gate would not be screwed or bolted into the existing fence or property, ensuring it remained a removable and non-permanent structure. c. Placement: The gate would be placed in the same location as the temporary mesh barrier [The tenant/s] had previously placed, between the existing black fence and the boundary fence on the right side of the property. d. [The tenant/s] confirmed that she would source and install the gate in accordance with these specifications. Kāinga Ora agreed that this solution addressed their concerns about unauthorised modifications and maintained the property’s appearance while meeting [The tenant/s] safety needs.

I have attached a screenshot of the removable gate that [The tenant/s] mentioned she would source from the supplier during the hearing, for completeness and to avoid any doubt.

Because the parties have reached a resolution, [The tenant/s] complaints under this hearing are dismissed. Likewise, the landlord’s complaint that [The tenant/s] breached the tenancy agreement by installing a gate/fence without consent is dismissed. The complaint concerns the landlord’s failure to respond to the request for consent within 21 days of receiving it.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not responded to a written request for consent for a fixture, renovation, alteration or addition.

A landlord must respond to a written request for consent for a fixture, renovation alteration or addition within 21 days after receiving the request and indicate whether or not it is considered a minor change. If the landlord considers it to be more than a minor change the written response may extend the time for responding to the tenant’s request, but it must be responded to in a reasonable amount of time. See section s 42A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42A(7) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. [The tenant/s] Evidence and Submissions:

[The tenant/s] submitted that she made a formal request for consent to install a gate in an email dated 4 November 2024, addressed to her tenancy manager, Ms Misileki. She argued that this request was distinct from previous communications and constituted a new request under Section 42A(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). [The tenant/s] emphasised that the Act requires landlords to respond to such requests within 21 days, and Kāinga Ora failed to do so.

[The tenant/s] provided the following evidence: a. A copy of the email sent on 4 November 2024, in which she explicitly requested consent for a removable gate and referenced Section 42A(3) of the RTA. b. She stated that she received no response from Kāinga Ora, despite the statutory requirement for a reply within 21 days. c. [The tenant/s] argued that this failure to respond was a breach of her rights under the RTA and demonstrated Kāinga Ora’s lack of good faith in addressing her concerns. Kāinga Ora’s Evidence and Submissions:

Kāinga Ora, represented by Ms Mituran-Abuid, acknowledged that [The tenant/s] had sent the email on 4 November 2024 but argued that the matter was already before the Tenancy Tribunal at that time. They submitted that, as the dispute was under adjudication, it was inappropriate to respond to the request separately.

Kāinga Ora provided the following evidence: a. A copy of their tribunal application, filed on 26 September 2024, which they argued demonstrated that the issue of the gate was already part of the tribunal process. b. They contended that [The tenant/s] request on 4 November 2024 was not a new request but part of the ongoing dispute, and therefore, they were not obligated to respond within 21 days. c. Kāinga Ora maintained that their actions were reasonable, given the context of the tribunal proceedings, and that they had not breached Section 42A(3) of the RTA. My view

Is there a difference between the earlier correspondence and [The tenant/s] latest email to Kāinga Ora, dated 4 November 2024?

The key issue is whether [The tenant/s] email of 4 November 2024 constituted a new request for consent for a separate matter under Section 42A(3) of the RTA, which required a response within 21 days after receiving the request, or whether it was part of the ongoing dispute already before the tribunal. [The tenant/s] argued that the request was distinct and demanded a response. At the same time, Kāinga Ora maintained that the matter in dispute involved a meeting and email communications between the parties without a fruitful outcome and that the issue was already before the Tribunal, making a response inappropriate.

On 29 August 2024, [The tenant/s] filed her application with the Tribunal challenging Kāinga Ora’s refusal to grant consent. This application was a direct response to an unproductive meeting with Kāinga Ora regarding the breach of the tenancy agreement due to an unauthorised gate or fence on the property a day before.

In the letter dated 28 August 2024, Kāinga Ora said, amongst other things and points, the following: a. “Recommended that you come to us with alternative solutions other than installing a gate as we cannot grant this request or have the structure remain here. b. We advised that the notice will still remain in place unless a solution is found before 9th September 2024. c. We advised we don’t want to go to Tribunal and can find a way forward by working through this, you confirmed there is no other way unless a gate is installed and to proceed to Tribunal.”

The letter summarised the discussions held during the meeting on 22 August 2022. [The tenant/s] expressed her view that the letter did not accurately reflect the conversation. However, the accuracy of the letter’s contents is immaterial, as the primary focus of the discussion was the installation of a gate and the unauthorised installation of a gate.

On 11 September 2024, [The tenant/s] emailed Ms. Misileki regarding a suggestion made by the visiting Tenancy Managers. The email addressed the cost implications of installing a removable versus a non-removable security gate.

On 17 September 2024, Ms. Misileki emailed [The tenant/s] concerning an unrelated matter. At the conclusion of the email, Ms. Misileki noted, “In regards to your gate, I have been advised that we still need to go to the tribunal due to the structure still being in place.”

No further communication occurred between the parties regarding the gate installation until 4 November 2024, when [The tenant/s] emailed Ms. Misileki. The subject line of the email was left blank.

In the body of the email, [The tenant/s] wrote: Dear Trojan, Having consulted with my advocate, I request permission under section 42A of the RTA to make a minor change to the dwelling that being a temporary fence across the driveway. The reasons are safety, security, peace of mind, wellbeing and privacy. As you know I have evidence in the form of a witness statement from neighbour that people have been coming onto property without my consent. You also know that I have PTSD and that unexpected or unknown people coming onto my property are particularly triggering for me. You will know that the blinds do not cover all of the windows outside the current gate, so are not a sufficient safeguard for privacy. My mobility scooter also needs to be kept in a secure location and the step into the house and into the back yard makes it impossible to keep inside. The fence does not have an impact on anyone else. It does not prevent access to the property of anyone else. It is temporary and can be easily removed. Neighbours do not object (opposite and on either side). You have 21 days to respond to this notice. [The tenant/s]

Upon reviewing the correspondence between the parties, it is evident that discussions regarding the installation of a gate were ongoing. Kāinga Ora clearly communicated its position, indicating that [The tenant/s] could propose alternative solutions for the gate installation. Conversely, [The tenant/s] maintained that she should either be permitted to install the gate or the matter would be escalated to the Tribunal.

True to her words, [The tenant/s] filed an application with the Tribunal on 29 August 2024, one day after receiving the letter from Kāinga Ora.

The parties continued their correspondence, during which [The tenant/s] presented Kāinga Ora with options for both removable and non-removable gates. However, Kāinga Ora reiterated that the dispute would need to proceed to the Tribunal, citing the reason that “the structure [was] still being in place.”

The email [The tenant/s] sent to Kāinga Ora on 4 November 2024, though without a subject line, pertained to the same issue: the installation of a gate.

The content of this email mirrored previous correspondence between the parties. The only notable difference was that the email appeared to have been drafted by [The tenant/s] advocate, who reminded Kāinga Ora of its obligation to respond under section 42A(3) of the RTA.

There is no evidence before me to suggest that Kāinga Ora failed to respond to [The tenant/s] request for consent within 21 days of receiving it. The evidence indicates that the parties held a meeting and continued discussions in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable resolution without the need for Tribunal intervention.

Even after the matter was brought before the Tribunal, [The tenant/s] persisted in her efforts to persuade Kāinga Ora to grant consent by presenting additional options. However, by this point, [The tenant/s] had already filed her application with the Tribunal, and Kāinga Ora had also filed its own application.

In my view, it was reasonable for Kāinga Ora not to respond to [The tenant/s] email of 4 November 2024, as the dispute was already before the Tribunal for adjudication. Although the email was drafted formally, its substance remained unchanged, focusing solely on the installation of the gate, which Kāinga Ora did not agree.

After carefully considering the evidence and submissions, I conclude that [The tenant/s] has not satisfied me that Kāinga Ora failed to respond to her request for consent to install a gate within 21 days after the request. A “demand’ for an answer does not prove Kāinga Ora failed to respond to the request for consent.

Accordingly, [The tenant/s] application under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee

No filing fee reimbursement is awarded to either party because the disputes were largely consented to or withdrawn. Name suppression

Although [The tenant/s] claim that Kāinga Ora failed to respond to her request for consent within 21 days was unsuccessful, I consider there is no public interest in disclosing [The tenant/s] name for the following reasons: a. [The tenant/s] lives with disabilities and b. [The tenant/s] reasons for wanting to install a gate are for her benefit and to assist her in avoiding being confronted with triggering events.