What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5058068 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 5058068?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5058068?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5058068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11395214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5058068 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 5058068?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5058068?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5058068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11395214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5058068 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I accommodated the tenant’s request to attend by telephone. Property managers attended for the landlord owner. The tenant also had a support person.
The tenancy ended on 30 September 2024. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant says that the landlord breached his quiet enjoyment when on 10 September 2024 a property manager turned up to do an inspection without notice. The tenant also says that in a subsequent email the property manager said the inspection was not in fact needed.
I heard from the property manager who had been at the premises on that date. She says it was in her schedule of inspections and provided a copy of this. I heard that an software error in the system of the property manager had meant that the tenant had not been notified of it taking place.
I heard that the error was as a result of the property being duplicated on the property manager’s system (in connection with the tenant wanting to end their fixed term early and the property needing to be readvertised – see below). This had resulted in the system believing that the property was vacant - so the system thought no notice was needed.
I heard from the property manager that on the day in question the property manager and the tenant discussed matters at the door and that the tenant then let her in. She was there to check repairs to a wall. I also heard that the email the tenant relies on meant that she did not have to come back another time – and not that the inspection itself was not needed.
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.
I find that the above events do not amount to harassment. There is no pattern of behaviour. I accept that the issue occurred due to a fault caused by the software used. It may have been inconvenient or annoying for the tenant to have the property manager arrive without notice but that does not mean the tenant has been harassed by this event.
I do not accept that the email communication relied on by the tenant shows that the inspection was not needed at all, as the tenant said. I find that it clearly refers to not needing worry about the need for a future inspection (because the inspection has been done). I find that this email is also not harassment or makes the inspection itself harassment.
In any event, even if this was wrong, I would not award exemplary damages for this. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I am not satisfied that the property manager had any intention to harass or even attend the property without notice – it was simply an inadvertent error. Market rent claim
The tenant claims the landlord sought rent in excess of the market rent of a Tribunal order. He referred to section 27(2) RTA in his application which relates to a breach of an existing Tribunal order relating to market rent. There is no such earlier order of the Tribunal so a claim under this section cannot succeed.
I also considered section 25 RTA because this also relates to market rent. Under this section a tenant may make an application to the Tribunal for it to consider whether the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. The Tribunal may then make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. However, such order cannot predate the date of the application (see s 25(4), RTA).
Here the tenancy had ended prior to the application being made. It is not possible therefore for the tenant to succeed in a market rent claim.
This claim is dismissed. Ending the fixed term tenancy early
The tenancy agreement was a fixed term tenancy which was for a year starting on 11 April 2024 and ending on 11 April 2025.
Fixed-term tenancies are entered into to provide some certainty and stability for both parties. The obligations of both parties (including the tenant’s liability for rent) continue until the end of the tenancy.
I heard how on 30 August 2024 the tenant told the landlord he wanted to be released from the fixed term. This was due to changes in personal circumstances.
The agreement that the parties ultimately reached, after much communication about the issue, was that a) the landlord would release the tenant from the fixed term on 30 September 2024 and the tenant would pay rent to this date; and b) the tenant would also pay the landlord the bond (4 weeks rent). This agreement was agreed by email and then recorded in a signed agreement. The tenant now says this agreement is not reasonable and he should be reimbursed some of that money.
I heard from the tenant that there were financial worries and he felt he had no choice but to enter into the agreement with the landlord to end the tenancy early. He thought the Tribunal process to release him from the tenancy would take too long and he did not know about it.
The landlord provided me with a detailed breakdown of the discussions between the parties. It is evident that the tenant wanted the tenancy to end quickly and was impatient for the landlord to accept early termination.
It is clear from many emails that the landlord took the time to explain the options to the tenant including the position that might be taken at the Tribunal if an application was made to end the fixed term early.
Here I find that ultimately the parties have negotiated their own release of the fixed term tenancy without recourse to the Tribunal.
This is not a typical situation where a tenant wants a fixed term to end, and the landlord has required the tenant to remain liable for the rent up to the date of the next tenancy starting and then also requires payment of break fees (such as advertising) on top of this.
Instead, here the landlord has released the tenant from his responsibilities to pay rent earlier than the new tenancy began (as the tenant demanded) and has, as a form of compensation, for the fixed term ending sooner, agreed a sum with the tenant.
I do not accept the submission by the tenant that he did not know about his options at the Tribunal. The possibility of involving the Tribunal is repeated by the tenant and also to the tenant by the property manager multiple times. The landlord’s property managers also took extensive efforts to set out a range of options. While the tenant may have wanted clarity as a matter of urgency that was not the responsibility of the landlord. An application could have been made to the Tribunal to terminate the fixed term tenancy if the tenant was unhappy with the position taken by the landlord.
Had the landlord not taken the pragmatic approach offered, she would have been entitled to continue to not agree to the tenant’s demands to be released and told the tenant that he has to continue to pay rent and seek release from the Tribunal. She could have not advertised the property for reletting.
There is no obligation on landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within particular period and no obligation on landlord to agree to end tenancy early (Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277).
Had the tenant come to the Tribunal to terminate the fixed term, the Tribunal would have applied s 66 RTA. Had the tenant then been successful in his application, s 66(2) provides that where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss.
I accept the evidence presented to me that the property was advertised on 30 August 2024 and that a new tenancy began on 31 October 2024. The landlord therefore had a loss of rent between the end of the tenancy and the start of the new tenancy. The property was also, from that date, rented at a lower rate (a further loss to the landlord).
Accordingly, I find the approach taken was fair and the sum agreed between the parties is reflective of reasonable compensation arising from the early termination of the fixed term tenancy. Therefore, no sum is to be returned to the tenant in respect of the agreement reached to end the fixed term tenancy early.
The tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed. Suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. This is granted to the landlord as they have been wholly successful (see s95A, RTA).
This is not granted for the tenant as he has not been wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if there is any other reason why I should grant the tenant name suppression (s 95A(4) RTA). I conclude that there are no such reasons. It is common for parties in the Tribunal to seek suppression. That is not sufficient to make the order where a party has not been wholly or substantially successful. This dispute is not unusual or anything other than ordinary Tribunal business and the open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be public. The public interest outweighs the tenant’s interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5058068 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5058068 — Harassment

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