What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394902 about?

The tribunal order states: Precision Property Management Limited Carol ann Molly De Farias shall pay

How much money was awarded in case 5394902?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394902?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13269677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394902 about?

The tribunal order states: Precision Property Management Limited Carol ann Molly De Farias shall pay

How much money was awarded in case 5394902?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394902?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13269677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5394902 — Harassment

Order

Precision Property Management Limited Carol ann Molly De Farias shall pay [the Tenant] $300.00 by way of exemplary damages, immediately.
The names and identifying particulars of the tenants are suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants made a wide-ranging application. Parts of that application referred to the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, and the Privacy Act 2020.
The Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to disputes arising under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and tenancy agreements. I therefore determine only the claims properly arising under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and make no finding on the other causes of action pleaded.
The issues requiring determination are: a. whether the landlord harassed the tenants or otherwise interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy; b. whether the landlord failed to provide and maintain locks so that the premises were reasonably secure, in particular by taking and not promptly returning the tenants’ keys; and c. whether the termination notice dated 8 September 2023 was retaliatory. Did the landlord harass or interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenants claim the landlord harassed them.
A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)
Breaching that obligation in circumstances amounting to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. The maximum amount for a breach of section 38(3) is $3,000.00.
Harassment means conduct that troubles, worries, or distresses another person and ordinarily involves a pattern of behaviour directed toward that person. 1 I adopt that approach.
The tenants relied on complaints made by a neighbour, phone calls from the property manager and related notices, and the landlord’s general handling of complaints.
I do not find that the landlord harassed the tenants. The evidence shows that complaints were received about noise on a number of occasions. The noise control records produced by the tenants do not establish that the complaints were fabricated. Rather, they show that complaints were in fact made, and on at least one occasion an excessive noise direction was issued. On other occasions no action was taken. That mixed picture does not support a finding that the landlord was acting in bad faith or simply inventing issues.
The tenant claimed that some or all of the reported noise came from a neighbouring Airbnb property occupied by short-stay guests. The tenant accepted there was an occasion where they were responsible for the noise but regarded this as an isolated event; a tangi at their property with some music and noise. However, I am not satisfied on the evidence that their claims are sufficiently established so as to make the landlord’s actions unreasonable.
I accept that the landlord did not independently investigate every complaint made by the neighbour. However, I do not consider that every complaint required separate investigation by the landlord before any response could be made. The landlord is not a policing body or noise control authority. It was 1 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. entitled to respond to repeated complaints brought to its attention, particularly where concerns about anti-social behaviour had been raised in the proper way.
I also take into account that the landlord did not issue anti-social behaviour notices for every complaint received. That tends against a finding of a campaign of harassment.
Looking at the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the landlord engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to trouble, worry, or distress the tenants, or that its conduct crossed the line from management of the tenancy into harassment.
I therefore dismiss the tenants’ harassment claim. No unlawful act under section 38(3) is established.

Did the Landlord fail to provide adequate locking mechanisms at the property?

The tenants also claim the landlord failed to return keys to them when they were taken for copying and this meant the premises were not secure for a period of four months.
A landlord must provide and maintain such locks and similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Failure to comply with that obligation is an unlawful act under section 46. The maximum exemplary damages for breach of section 46(3) is $1,500.00.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that their keys were taken by the landlord’s agent for copying and were not returned promptly. I find that there was then a period of about four months during which the tenants were without the keys.
The evidence about how this occurred was incomplete. The property manager responsible at the time had moved on and was not available to give evidence. The attending property manager said she had been on leave for about a year and came back to discover the issue with the keys. She was not previously aware of the issue and returned the key promptly once she resumed work and became aware of the problem.
I accept that explanation to the extent it goes to the reason why the attending property manager personally did not act sooner. However, it does not answer the tenants’ complaint. The landlord, acting through its agency, took possession of the tenants’ keys and then failed to ensure that they were returned within a reasonable time. That amounted to a failure to maintain the locks and security arrangements in a way that ensured the premises were reasonably secure.
I therefore find that the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 46(3).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if satisfied it is 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.
In this case, I assess the breach as technical but real. The tenants were left without keys for a period that should not have occurred. That would plainly have been inconvenient and unsettling.
Against that, I am not satisfied that the breach was deliberate in the sense of a conscious decision to deprive the tenants of security. The more likely explanation is poor record-keeping and poor handover between property managers. The attending property manager acted quickly once she became aware of the issue.
The effect on the tenants was limited but not trivial. They were inconvenienced and the premises were, for that period, less secure than they should have been.
The public interest requires landlords and property managers to keep proper control of keys and to ensure prompt return where keys are taken for copying. Even where the breach arises through carelessness rather than malice, there must be some consequence.
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a modest award of exemplary damages is appropriate. I award the tenants exemplary damages of $300.00 for the unlawful act under section 46(3). Was the Landlord’s termination notice retaliatory?
The tenants also say the termination notice dated 8 September 2023 was retaliatory.
A tenant may apply for an order declaring that a notice of termination was retaliatory. A retaliatory notice is one given in response to the tenant exercising, or proposing to exercise, rights under the Act. A landlord who gives a retaliatory notice commits an unlawful act.
The termination notice produced at the hearing recorded extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment as the ground relied on. The tenants themselves acknowledged in evidence that the premises had significant issues and that renovations were needed, including issues with the floor sagging.
The tenants submitted that the notice followed earlier disputes, including concerns about rent increases, keys, access, and neighbour complaints. I could find no clear evidence of tension between the parties or a deliberate effort by the Landlord to end the tenancy. However, timing alone is not enough.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the notice was given in retaliation for the tenants asserting their rights. Concerns about anti-social behaviour had been raised by the landlord in the proper way during the tenancy. More importantly, the stated ground of renovations was consistent with the condition of the premises as described by the tenants themselves. I was not able to conclude that the real reason for the notice was retaliatory rather than the carrying out of substantial works.
The claim that the notice was retaliatory is therefore dismissed. No unlawful act under section 54 is established.

Should the Tribunal grant name suppression?

The tenants seek name suppression.
The Tribunal may order that the name or identifying particulars of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest.
I am satisfied suppression should be granted. The dispute involves sensitive personal matters. Some of those matters have already been publicised elsewhere. Republishing them in a searchable tenancy decision would risk compounding that harm. I also accept that publication of the tenants’ names in connection with these allegations may make it unduly difficult for them to secure accommodation in the future.
There is no sufficient countervailing public interest in publication of the tenants’ names or identifying details. The issues in the case can be understood without identification of the tenants.
I therefore grant name suppression to the tenants and direct that their names and identifying particulars not be published.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants made a wide-ranging application. Parts of that application referred to the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, and the Privacy Act 2020.

The Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to disputes arising under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and tenancy agreements. I therefore determine only the claims properly arising under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and make no finding on the other causes of action pleaded.

The issues requiring determination are: a. whether the landlord harassed the tenants or otherwise interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy; b. whether the landlord failed to provide and maintain locks so that the premises were reasonably secure, in particular by taking and not promptly returning the tenants’ keys; and c. whether the termination notice dated 8 September 2023 was retaliatory. Did the landlord harass or interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the landlord harassed them.

A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)

Breaching that obligation in circumstances amounting to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. The maximum amount for a breach of section 38(3) is $3,000.00.

Harassment means conduct that troubles, worries, or distresses another person and ordinarily involves a pattern of behaviour directed toward that person. 1 I adopt that approach.

The tenants relied on complaints made by a neighbour, phone calls from the property manager and related notices, and the landlord’s general handling of complaints.

I do not find that the landlord harassed the tenants. The evidence shows that complaints were received about noise on a number of occasions. The noise control records produced by the tenants do not establish that the complaints were fabricated. Rather, they show that complaints were in fact made, and on at least one occasion an excessive noise direction was issued. On other occasions no action was taken. That mixed picture does not support a finding that the landlord was acting in bad faith or simply inventing issues.

The tenant claimed that some or all of the reported noise came from a neighbouring Airbnb property occupied by short-stay guests. The tenant accepted there was an occasion where they were responsible for the noise but regarded this as an isolated event; a tangi at their property with some music and noise. However, I am not satisfied on the evidence that their claims are sufficiently established so as to make the landlord’s actions unreasonable.

I accept that the landlord did not independently investigate every complaint made by the neighbour. However, I do not consider that every complaint required separate investigation by the landlord before any response could be made. The landlord is not a policing body or noise control authority. It was 1 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. entitled to respond to repeated complaints brought to its attention, particularly where concerns about anti-social behaviour had been raised in the proper way.

I also take into account that the landlord did not issue anti-social behaviour notices for every complaint received. That tends against a finding of a campaign of harassment.

Looking at the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the landlord engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to trouble, worry, or distress the tenants, or that its conduct crossed the line from management of the tenancy into harassment.

I therefore dismiss the tenants’ harassment claim. No unlawful act under section 38(3) is established.

Did the Landlord fail to provide adequate locking mechanisms at the property?

The tenants also claim the landlord failed to return keys to them when they were taken for copying and this meant the premises were not secure for a period of four months.

A landlord must provide and maintain such locks and similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Failure to comply with that obligation is an unlawful act under section 46. The maximum exemplary damages for breach of section 46(3) is $1,500.00.

I accept the tenants’ evidence that their keys were taken by the landlord’s agent for copying and were not returned promptly. I find that there was then a period of about four months during which the tenants were without the keys.

The evidence about how this occurred was incomplete. The property manager responsible at the time had moved on and was not available to give evidence. The attending property manager said she had been on leave for about a year and came back to discover the issue with the keys. She was not previously aware of the issue and returned the key promptly once she resumed work and became aware of the problem.

I accept that explanation to the extent it goes to the reason why the attending property manager personally did not act sooner. However, it does not answer the tenants’ complaint. The landlord, acting through its agency, took possession of the tenants’ keys and then failed to ensure that they were returned within a reasonable time. That amounted to a failure to maintain the locks and security arrangements in a way that ensured the premises were reasonably secure.

I therefore find that the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 46(3).

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if satisfied it is 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.

In this case, I assess the breach as technical but real. The tenants were left without keys for a period that should not have occurred. That would plainly have been inconvenient and unsettling.

Against that, I am not satisfied that the breach was deliberate in the sense of a conscious decision to deprive the tenants of security. The more likely explanation is poor record-keeping and poor handover between property managers. The attending property manager acted quickly once she became aware of the issue.

The effect on the tenants was limited but not trivial. They were inconvenienced and the premises were, for that period, less secure than they should have been.

The public interest requires landlords and property managers to keep proper control of keys and to ensure prompt return where keys are taken for copying. Even where the breach arises through carelessness rather than malice, there must be some consequence.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a modest award of exemplary damages is appropriate. I award the tenants exemplary damages of $300.00 for the unlawful act under section 46(3). Was the Landlord’s termination notice retaliatory?

The tenants also say the termination notice dated 8 September 2023 was retaliatory.

A tenant may apply for an order declaring that a notice of termination was retaliatory. A retaliatory notice is one given in response to the tenant exercising, or proposing to exercise, rights under the Act. A landlord who gives a retaliatory notice commits an unlawful act.

The termination notice produced at the hearing recorded extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment as the ground relied on. The tenants themselves acknowledged in evidence that the premises had significant issues and that renovations were needed, including issues with the floor sagging.

The tenants submitted that the notice followed earlier disputes, including concerns about rent increases, keys, access, and neighbour complaints. I could find no clear evidence of tension between the parties or a deliberate effort by the Landlord to end the tenancy. However, timing alone is not enough.

I am not satisfied on the evidence that the notice was given in retaliation for the tenants asserting their rights. Concerns about anti-social behaviour had been raised by the landlord in the proper way during the tenancy. More importantly, the stated ground of renovations was consistent with the condition of the premises as described by the tenants themselves. I was not able to conclude that the real reason for the notice was retaliatory rather than the carrying out of substantial works.

The claim that the notice was retaliatory is therefore dismissed. No unlawful act under section 54 is established.

Should the Tribunal grant name suppression?

The tenants seek name suppression.

The Tribunal may order that the name or identifying particulars of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest.

I am satisfied suppression should be granted. The dispute involves sensitive personal matters. Some of those matters have already been publicised elsewhere. Republishing them in a searchable tenancy decision would risk compounding that harm. I also accept that publication of the tenants’ names in connection with these allegations may make it unduly difficult for them to secure accommodation in the future.

There is no sufficient countervailing public interest in publication of the tenants’ names or identifying details. The issues in the case can be understood without identification of the tenants.

I therefore grant name suppression to the tenants and direct that their names and identifying particulars not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394902 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394902 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the Landlord fail to provide adequate locking mechanisms at the property?

Should the Tribunal grant name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the Landlord fail to provide adequate locking mechanisms at the property?

Should the Tribunal grant name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions