What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5149191 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5149191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5149191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5149191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11488748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5149191 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5149191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5149191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5149191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11488748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15D Walton Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5149191 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Chaplain and Ms Hamilton represented the landlord,
The tenant, Mr Stoneman, applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of his right to quiet enjoyment and/or harassment.
Mr Stoneman also sought other orders, including requiring Harcourts staff to undertake training, making donations to charities, and advising prospective tenants of Harcourts inability to understand those with disabilities. However, as explained to Mr Stoneman at the hearing, these are orders that are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make. Is Mr Stoneman entitled to compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of his right to quiet enjoyment and/or harassment?
The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act. The right to quiet enjoyment effectively means the right of a tenant not to have the quality of their tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord (or his or her agent).
Where the breach of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded: sections 38(3) and 109(4) of the Act. 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 basis of Mr Stoneman’s claim under this head is the way in which Ms Hamilton and Ms Chaplain communicated with him in emails and phone calls regarding the moving of a BBQ trailer he is storing on what is said to be common property at the premises (Mr Stoneman has a tenancy of one unit of four on a cross lease title). Mr Stoneman claims that the way in which Ms Hamilton and Ms Chaplain communicated to him about the matter was “threatening”, “unprofessional”, and “disrespectful” particularly given his disabilities.
I have carefully considered the email communications between Mr Stoneman and the property managers, While I accept that Mr Stoneman was upset about the content of them (he does not want to move the trailer and believes he is entitled to have it parked where it is), I do not consider that there was anything in any of those communications that objectively come close to constituting harassment or a breach of Mr Stoneman’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Mr Stoneman also referred to words used by Ms Chaplain in a telephone conversation on 24 January which he considered to be threatening. He said that Ms Chaplain told him that he was not listening, to not waste his money going to the Tribunal, and that he should seek advice before filing an application. Ms Chaplain denied ever threatening Mr Stoneman or being disrespectful. She said that the comments regarding filing in the Tribunal were made in the context of Mr Stoneman saying he was going to the Tribunal to have the legislation changed which she was aware the Tribunal could not do.
While the discussion between Mr Stoneman and Ms Chaplain may have been robust, I do not consider that there was anything in any of the comments made by Ms Chaplain that objectively constitute harassment or breach of Mr Stoneman’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Mr Stoneman’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is therefore dismissed.
It is clear that the crux of Mr Stoneman’s concerns is the situation with the parking of the trailer and, in particular, his belief that the landlord has no right to require him to move it. However, Mr Stoneman did not want to amend his application to enable me to consider that issue. He confirmed that he only wanted me to consider his application as filed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Chaplain and Ms Hamilton represented the landlord,
The tenant, Mr Stoneman, applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of his right to quiet enjoyment and/or harassment.
Mr Stoneman also sought other orders, including requiring Harcourts staff to undertake training, making donations to charities, and advising prospective tenants of Harcourts inability to understand those with disabilities. However, as explained to Mr Stoneman at the hearing, these are orders that are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make. Is Mr Stoneman entitled to compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of his right to quiet enjoyment and/or harassment?
The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act. The right to quiet enjoyment effectively means the right of a tenant not to have the quality of their tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord (or his or her agent).
Where the breach of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded: sections 38(3) and 109(4) of the Act. 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 basis of Mr Stoneman’s claim under this head is the way in which Ms Hamilton and Ms Chaplain communicated with him in emails and phone calls regarding the moving of a BBQ trailer he is storing on what is said to be common property at the premises (Mr Stoneman has a tenancy of one unit of four on a cross lease title). Mr Stoneman claims that the way in which Ms Hamilton and Ms Chaplain communicated to him about the matter was “threatening”, “unprofessional”, and “disrespectful” particularly given his disabilities.
I have carefully considered the email communications between Mr Stoneman and the property managers, While I accept that Mr Stoneman was upset about the content of them (he does not want to move the trailer and believes he is entitled to have it parked where it is), I do not consider that there was anything in any of those communications that objectively come close to constituting harassment or a breach of Mr Stoneman’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Mr Stoneman also referred to words used by Ms Chaplain in a telephone conversation on 24 January which he considered to be threatening. He said that Ms Chaplain told him that he was not listening, to not waste his money going to the Tribunal, and that he should seek advice before filing an application. Ms Chaplain denied ever threatening Mr Stoneman or being disrespectful. She said that the comments regarding filing in the Tribunal were made in the context of Mr Stoneman saying he was going to the Tribunal to have the legislation changed which she was aware the Tribunal could not do.
While the discussion between Mr Stoneman and Ms Chaplain may have been robust, I do not consider that there was anything in any of the comments made by Ms Chaplain that objectively constitute harassment or breach of Mr Stoneman’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Mr Stoneman’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is therefore dismissed.
It is clear that the crux of Mr Stoneman’s concerns is the situation with the parking of the trailer and, in particular, his belief that the landlord has no right to require him to move it. However, Mr Stoneman did not want to amend his application to enable me to consider that issue. He confirmed that he only wanted me to consider his application as filed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5149191 — Harassment at 15D Walton Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5149191 — Harassment at 15D Walton Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions