What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066475 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 5066475?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066475?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12360516-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066475 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 5066475?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066475?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12360516-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5066475 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of: a. The tenant’s name and address; b. The tenant’s neighbours’ names and addresses; and c. The landlord’s employees’ names.
The tenant’s application seeking compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and breach of landlord’s obligations is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. The tenant represented herself.
The tenant sought compensation of $100,000 for the landlord’s breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in the following ways: a. Breaching the landlord’s responsibility to ensure none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy (s 45(1)(e)); and b. Breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment (s 38).
The landlord denies breaching s45(1)(e) and/or s38 of the RTA. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background
The tenant has lived in Kāinga Ora homes for approximately 35 years. She began living at her Kāinga Ora home at [tenancy address suppressed] on 6 August 2020 and remains living there now. The tenant lives in the property alone, although her son lived with her briefly in 2020. At the time of the incident in October 2024, the tenant lived alone in the premises.
The tenant’s application relates to an incident in October 2024 which involved another Kāinga Ora tenant who resides at [neighbouring property 1]. That person was referred to during the hearing only by his first name, [Neighbour 1], as the tenant says she only knew his first name.
The tenant says she has lived in several Kāinga Ora homes and suffers from PTSD relating to trauma experienced in prior tenancies and in this tenancy. The tenant provided evidence she has received counselling, on and off, from July 2022 until February 2025. The tenant does not currently receive counselling. Did the landlord breach their responsibility to the tenant under s45(1)(e) of the RTA?
Under section 45(1)(e), a landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The tenant says the landlord breached that obligation in that Kāinga Ora failed to respond, or respond adequately, to her complaint made on 14 October 2024 regarding her neighbour, [Neighbour 1], letting off fireworks on 13 October 2024.
The tenant says that on the evening of 13 October 2024 at approximately 9:45pm, [Neighbour 1], or someone at his home at [neighbouring property 1], let off fireworks which were directed at the tenant’s home at [tenancy address suppressed]. The fireworks woke the tenant and caused her significant stress.
The tenant says in the following days and weeks she made multiple calls to the Kāinga Ora call centre, but did not get a response for over one month. The tenant says when she did get a response, Kāinga Ora failed to investigate the matter sufficiently, and in fact went against her specific request not to speak to another Kāinga Ora tenant who lives at [neighbouring property 2], who was referred to as [Neighbour 2]. The tenant requested [Neighbour 2] not be contacted as the tenant feared [Neighbour 2] would tell [Neighbour 1] the tenant had complained about him.
On 30 October 2024, the tenant emailed the Team Leader at Kāinga Ora who was assigned to investigate her complaint, providing her with a copy of two audio recordings. The recordings were created by the tenant during phone calls with [Neighbour 2], and were played during the hearing. I summarise their content as: a. Recording 13 October 2024 at 21:45: The tenant speaking to [Neighbour 2] after being woken by fireworks. During the conversation, the tenant suggests to [Neighbour 2] the fireworks were let off by one of [Neighbour 1]’s family members. b. Recording 21 October 2024 at 18:07: The tenant tells [Neighbour 2] she believes [Neighbour 1] placed his grandchild’s furniture out on the kerb outside his home the day after the fireworks in response to his grandchild letting off the fireworks towards the tenant’s home on 13 October 2024.
A transcript of the recording dated 13 October 2024 was filed by the tenant. The tenant did not file a transcript of the recording dated 21 October 2024. The tenant played each recording but elected to stop the audio files once the relevant portion had been heard.
The tenant emailed the two audio files recorded on 13 and 21 October 2024 to Team Leader, [staff member 1], on 30 October 2024.
The tenant says a video file created on either 30 October 2024, or 7 November 2024, was also provided to Kāinga Ora, but the tenant was unsure exactly when, and could not identify the email showing who she sent the video file to. The tenant says the video file was evidence that [Neighbour 1] was having a “domestic” on the day of the recording, and on that basis, the tenant suggested Kāinga Ora should not approach him at his home to discuss her complaint.
The tenant says she asked the Team Leader not to contact her neighbour, [Neighbour 2], but the Team Leader did so anyway. The tenant says that on 14 November 2024, Kāinga Ora advised her no further action would be taken due to a lack of evidential sufficiency.
In response, Kāinga Ora say although there was some delay in having the matter assigned due to the first contact person being away on sick leave, they did take reasonable steps to investigate the complaint but ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence to issue [Neighbour 1] with a written notice of anti-social behaviour, under s55A of the RTA, or a warning that the tenant may be breaching their obligations under s40(2)(c) of the RTA.
Kāinga Ora acknowledge that on 14 October 2024, the tenant made a complaint about fireworks being let of at or near her home on the evening of 13 October 2024. While they do not dispute the tenant’s account that fireworks were let off that evening near her home, Kāinga Ora say there was insufficient evidence identifying who was responsible.
Kāinga Ora say that on 30 October 2024, the complaint was assigned to Team Leader, [staff member 1], who emailed the tenant that day. Kāinga Ora says [staff member 1] listened to the two audio files provided by the tenant, and, on an unknown date in the week or so after 30 October, spoke to the tenant [Neighbour 2]. [The landlord’s representative] did not provide any evidence as to what [Neighbour 2] told [staff member 1] but said the conversation did not assist the investigation.
Kāinga Ora say that on 4 November 2024, the neighbour [Neighbour 1] attended a meeting at Kāinga Ora offices to discuss the fireworks complaint. [Neighbour 1] was told a complaint had been made, but the identity of the tenant was not disclosed. During the meeting, [Neighbour 1] stated he did not recall any fireworks incident and was adamant he had not let off fireworks on the evening of 13 October 2024.
Based on [staff member 1]’s review of the audio files, her conversation with [Neighbour 2] and the meeting with [Neighbour 1], [staff member 1] concluded there was insufficient evidence to issue a notice of anti-social behaviour to [Neighbour 1], or take any other steps, and concluded the investigation should be closed without further action.
[The landlord’s representative] states Kāinga Ora records indicate [Neighbour 1] had not been issued any notices of anti-social behaviour in the 12 months prior to the 13 October 2024 incident. Police files obtained for the purposes of the hearing show there had not been any Police call-outs to [Neighbour 1]’s address in the year 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024.
[The landlord’s representative] says [staff member 1]’s decision not to take further action was communicated to the tenant by phone call on 7 November 2024. This was followed up by way of email on 14 November 2024. [The landlord’s representative] notes the tenant filed the application to the Tribunal on 11 November 2024, which is consistent with the tenant being advised of the decision prior to 14 November 2024.
I am not satisfied the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to investigate the tenant’s complaint in a timely manner. The complaint was assigned to [staff member 1] two weeks after it was received. The complaint was investigated, and a decision was communicated to the tenant on 7 November 2024, 3.5 weeks after the incident. The tenant’s claim that it took over a month to assign the matter for investigation is not proved.
The investigate steps taken by the landlord were reasonable and appropriate. The landlord spoke to the neighbour, [Neighbour 1], who denied any involvement, and to another neighbour, [Neighbour 2], who was of little or no assistance. The landlord listened to audio files provided by the tenant of phone conversations between the tenant and [Neighbour 2] on the night of the incident, and on 21 October 2024.
Although those audio files were heavily emphasised by the tenant at the hearing, the audio files are of limited evidentiary value. They are recorded phone conversations in which the tenant and [Neighbour 2] expressed their belief that it was [Neighbour 1], or a member of his family, letting the fireworks off. In the audio files, [Neighbour 2] does not confirm she saw who let the fireworks off. The audio files record the two neighbours supporting each other on the night of the incident, and offering each other their opinions as to who may be responsible, but no more.
Ultimately, Kāinga Ora determined there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that [Neighbour 1], or a member of his household, was responsible for letting off the fireworks on 13 October 2024, and I agree. I am not satisfied the evidence presented by the tenant demonstrates that it was more likely than not that [Neighbour 1] was responsible for the anti-social behaviour complained of, nor that Kāinga Ora did not take appropriate steps in investigating the matter.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for the landlord’s breach of s45(1)(e) of the RTA is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach their responsibility to the tenant under s38 of the RTA?

Under section 38, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The tenant says the landlord breached that obligation by speaking to her neighbour [Neighbour 2] about the fireworks incident on 13 October 2024 after the tenant had specifically requested they not speak to her. The tenant says she told Senior Housing Support Manager, [staff member 2], Team Leader Housing Support, [staff member 1], and the operators at the Kāinga Ora call centre not to speak to [Neighbour 2] about the incident as the tenant believed [Neighbour 2] would tell [Neighbour 1] that the tenant had complained about him.
The tenant says by speaking to [Neighbour 2], the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and/or privacy. The tenant says that soon after [staff member 1] spoke to [Neighbour 2], [Neighbour 1] (or those staying with him) played loud music more frequently from their cars. The tenant says the louder, or more frequent, music was [Neighbour 1] retaliating to the tenant making a complaint. The tenant says he could have only known of her complaint by [Neighbour 2] telling him that [staff member 1] had spoken to her.
The landlord acknowledges that, despite the tenant’s request that Kāinga Ora not speak to [Neighbour 2], [staff member 1] spoke to [Neighbour 2] on an unknown date between 30 October 2024 and 7 November 2024 about the tenant’s complaint. [The landlord’s representative] did not have a record of what was discussed, and [staff member 1] was not called as a witness. [The landlord’s representative] says the conversation with [Neighbour 2] did not assist the investigation.
The landlord says speaking to [Neighbour 2] was necessary in order to investigate the tenant’s complaint that [Neighbour 1], or someone in his household, left off fireworks directed towards the tenant’s home on 13 October 2024. The landlord says doing so did not amount to a breach of s38 of the RTA.
I find that, by speaking to [Neighbour 2], the landlord did not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. I am satisfied the landlord spoke to [Neighbour 2] as part of their investigation of the tenant’s complaint. I am not satisfied that the landlord speaking to [Neighbour 2] caused the retaliatory music issues the tenant complains of.
The tenant had identified [Neighbour 2] as the only witness to the incident on 13 October 2024. It is unclear how Kāinga Ora could have investigated the tenant’s complaint without speaking to the only witness the tenant identified. In fact, the evidence suggests [Neighbour 2] did not actually witness who set off the fireworks, but, like the tenant, [Neighbour 2] had her suspicions that the person responsible was from [Neighbour 1]’s household.
The landlord stated no complaints had been received about loud music coming from [Neighbour 1]’s household, or cars travelling to or from his household in the months October to December 2024. The tenant says she did not make a complaint, as she did not trust Kāinga Ora. The tenant also acknowledges it is possible the louder music coming from cars was just people visiting [Neighbour 1], and that it may not have been in direct retaliation to her complaint about fireworks. I am not satisfied it is more likely than not that the louder music the tenant complains of was in retaliation to [Neighbour 1] becoming aware, via [Neighbour 2], that the tenant had complained about him.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for the landlord’s breach of s38 of the RTA is dismissed. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant’s application fee?
As the tenant has not succeeded with their claim the landlord is not required to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Should orders for suppression be made?

The tenant sought suppression of their name, however, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in their claim. The landlord sought suppression of the tenant’s neighbours’ names and addresses.
I must consider whether to grant a suppression order having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system and is the starting point when considering an application for suppression. In my view, suppression of the tenant’s and her neighbours’ names and addresses is appropriate in this case. I also order suppression of the names of the Kāinga Ora employees involved in this case.
The events of this case are demonstrative of the tension between the tenant and her neighbours and the tenant fears retaliation from her neighbours if her complaint is made public. I also note that all parties are tenants of Kāinga Ora and have been for several years. Given that, the landlord is aware of the identities of those involved, and I therefore see little public interest in making their identities publicly available.
In describing the steps taken by Kāinga Ora it has been necessary to refer to employees of Kāinga Ora by their names. My findings are that those employees did not act in breach of their obligations, and I therefore consider publication of their names is not justified. For clarity, I do not order suppression of the landlord’s name, only the names of the landlord’s employees referred to.
Accordingly, an order for suppression of the tenant’s and neighbour’s names and addresses, and to the names of the landlord’s employees, is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066475 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066475 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their responsibility to the tenant under s38 of the RTA?

Should orders for suppression be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their responsibility to the tenant under s38 of the RTA?

Should orders for suppression be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions