What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258179 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5258179?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258179?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12531201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258179 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5258179?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258179?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12531201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Old Coach Road, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5258179 — Leaks

Order

The tenant’s applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by phone, with the assistance of an interpreter for the landlord. The tenant was represented by Kanchanuch Sookpong, who also appears to have completed the application.
The tenancy was a fixed-term one, due to on 5 July 2025. There was just one tenant, Uyen Phuong Ngoc Le.
Although the landlord’s address is the same as the tenancy, the parties confirmed that the tenant rented a separate, fully-contained dwelling downstairs from the landlord.
Mr Sookpong was not named in the tenancy agreement, but he did live at the property. The landlord was aware that the tenant’s two brothers were her flatmates. The text exchange reveals that he was not happy about Mr Sookpong living there. The tenancy agreement was between the landlord and Uyen Phyong Ngoc Le only.
In her original application, the tenant had applied for a reduction of fixed-term but she moved out on 9 June 2025. This aspect was no pursued at the hearing.
The hearing related to Healthy Homes Standards, and harassment.
The onus is on the applicant to prove her claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant was not available for the hearing and provided no statement of events. All evidence was from Mr Sookpong, who had been present for some, but not all events. Mr Sookpong was not Mr Nguyen’s tenant. Harassment/breach of quiet enjoyment
The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment relates to three areas: a. Some texts the landlord sent the tenant; b. Some verbal arguments the parties had; c. Entering the premises without giving notice.
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.
When a landlord and tenant live in close proximity, some misunderstandings arise. Sometimes landlords overstep the boundaries, even believing they are being friendly neighbours. Other times, as here, tolerance and respect were eroded.
In April 2025 the landlord sent the tenant some texts in Vietnamese. An English translation was provided. At the hearing the interpreter was asked to translate the English for the landlord so that he could confirm the translation.
There was a challenge with translation of some of the idiom but in general, the landlord accepted the content. He said: I’m not beating around the bush. I’m telling you directly what the issues are so you can learn for the future. You’re the one beating around the bush—from the fridge incident, you agreed to bring it downstairs, then messaged Thảo to resolve something you could’ve told me directly. About who’s living there—if someone is staying, tell me so I know. Guests staying 2-3 months without paying bills isn’t okay. If it’s chill, say it’s chill. But the upstairs lady needs to know what’s going on. You can’t just live carelessly and expect people to know how to deal with it. As for that Thai guy, I’m saying this directly: • If he acts up again even once, • He won’t be allowed back in the house. • Disrespectful • Uneducated • Don’t let people look in and say the pot is covering the lid • I’ve told you so many times, it makes me uncomfortable and it spreads to your group too.
These texts were sent in the context of Mr Nguyen’s belief that the tenant was not paying her share of the utilities.
Unpleasant texts may be a ground for finding there has been a breach of quiet enjoyment, depending on the content, volume and duration.
In the present case, I find that the texts were unpleasant and immature, but I do not find that they amount to harassment. If the landlord had an issue with the number of people living at the premises, he could have discussed this in a mature way. I note that there was no stipulation on the tenancy agreement that there was a maximum number of tenants, and it was implicit in the added wording that there would be more than one. It is recommended that if the landlord intends to continue to rent out the dwelling, he should better inform himself of his rights and responsibilities, including how to complete a rental agreement to record any conditions which are allowed by the Act.
Mr Sookpong said that the landlord disturbed their quiet enjoyment when he had his family over and they stayed late, after 10pm.
In this instance, I find that the tenant may have been disturbed by Mr Nguyen but I am not sure that the disturbance arose as a result of the landlord/tenant relationship. Rather, the tenant may have been disturbed by her neighbour, who was also her landlord.
But in an event, I do not find that a landlord having some visitors over on one occasion amounts to an interference with reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant. Sometimes when landlords and tenants live in close proximity there can be tension. Both parties should show some consideration and tolerance. Guests making a noise on one occasion does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment.
On another occasion, there was an argument about the parking zones. Mr Sookpong said that the landlord said, “It’s my f...ing house.” The landlord denied that he said this but he agreed that he got cross about the parking areas. He apologised.
One argument about the driveway does not amount to a breach of the tenant’s rights. It would have been sensible for the landlord to have designated the parking spaces at the time of drawing up the agreement. That might have avoided an argument. However, not every argument amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Sookpong said that the landlord abused them and was rude about their guests one time when the landlord had knocked at the door and been allowed to enter with their consent.
On another occasion when Mr Sookpong was home, the landlord knocked on the door and then entered without consent. He then asked Mr Sookpong when he was leaving.
Mr Nguyen said that he wanted to borrow a cooker. He had not been able to get hold of the tenant, but had spoken to her brother who also lived at the property. The brother had agreed that he could go and collect it. He agreed that he asked Mr Sookpong when he was leaving the property.
Mr Sookpong said that he had spoken to the brother who did not recall the phone call. The brother was not available to give evidence.
In circumstances where the landlord said that he had the consent of one of the occupants to enter the premises, the tenant has not provided evidence from that occupant that he did not agree to the landlord entering the premises, the tenant has not established that the landlord has breached his obligations.
I accept that there was some unpleasantness. If Mr Nguyen is going to continue to rent the premises, he should ensure that he is familiar with all of his rights and responsibilities. If he finds having people living below him annoying, he may need to reconsider whether he should continue to rent the premises. On this occasion I have decided that the tenant has not produced sufficient evidence to establish that Mr Nguyen breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
I do not find that in combination, the incidents amount to harassment. There is no evidence of a pattern of the landlord annoying the tenant. Rather, there were several discreet incidents.
Uyen Phuong Ngoc Le claims that at the start of the lease the landlord has not provided any document about Healthy Homes Standards and she does not believe that the property complies. She provided no further evidence about which of the five standards has not been complied with.
Mr Sookpong said that there was a window which leaked. They did not raise it with the landlord.
The landlord did not agree that the window leaked. He said there may have been some steam because the tenant did not open the windows.
The tenant has not established that the property did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards or that she asked for any information regarding this.
Overall, it appears that the landlord became frustrated with the tenants and did not always conduct himself in a professional or courteous way. On this occasion, I do not find that he interfered with the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises.
The tenant has not established that the landlord has not complied with a Healthy Homes Standard.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
The landlord is advised to educate himself on all of the responsibilities of being a landlord.
The tenant has not been successful in her claims and so there are no orders for refund of filing fee or name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258179 — Leaks at 20 Old Coach Road, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258179 — Leaks at 20 Old Coach Road, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

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