What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4346144?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4346144?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4346144?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4346144?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9216215-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4346144?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4346144?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4346144?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4346144?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9216215-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18A Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4346144 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 July 2023.
The tenant claims that she is being discriminated by her landlord (a state social housing agency) when her request to be transferred from 18A Beaumonts Way to another house had been substantially delayed by the landlord.
The tenant’s initial tenancy at 18A Beaumonts Way started on 27 May 2019. There were train tracks at the back of the property so the tenant was aware of the location of the property when it was offered to her and accepted by her.
The state housing agency say that they acquired the property as a new-built which building was erected and completed according to Council-approved plans, and duly obtained a building code, resource consent and building consent.
While the landlord’s internal notes state that on 1 September 2020 (15 months after the tenant had resided there) the tenant had brought her concerns regarding the train tracks (the house is near tracks and shakes, says the tenant), the first request from the tenant for transfer/relocation from 18A Beaumonts Way was made by email to the landlord on 16 November 2020.
According to the landlord, the tenant had an active transfer application with the MSD rated A18 (indicating high priority) on 11 December 2020.
On 14 December 2020, the tenant was referred to the landlord’s placement team to action her request for transfer to a property in Mangere Bridge. An offer was made shortly thereafter for a property in Mangere but the tenant declined due to some concerns about potential redevelopment plans.
On 19 February 2021, the landlord and tenant discussed about the tenant relocating to 19 Corkill Place in Papakura. The tenant accepted the property shortly after visiting 19 Corkill Place on 25 February 2021.
The tenant moved into 19 Corkill Place on 10 March 2021.
In total, the tenant was at 18A Beaumonts Way for 22 months before being transferred to 19 Corkill Place Papakura. However, considering her first request for transfer to the landlord in November 2020, the transfer to 19 Corkill Place was concluded in a matter of 4 months, after tenant turned down the property at Mangere Bridge.
While the tenant considers that 18A Beaumonts Way was grossly unsuitable as a home for her infant child and her housing needs in the first place, due to its proximity to train tracks which she says caused her child to suffer significant physiological and psychological effects, the failure to entertain a state housing tenant’s request to relocate does not by itself amount to discrimination. So too is a purported failure by the landlord to attend to the tenant’s request for transfer within the timeframe desired by the tenant; that also does not by itself amount to discrimination.
Discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993 (‘HRA’) requires a person to be subject to different treatment by reason of a prohibited ground under section 21 of HRA.
Section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) provides: Discrimination to be unlawful act (1) Each of the following is hereby declared to be an unlawful act: (a) discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993;
Here the claim of discrimination appears to be in respect of termination of the tenancy at 18A Beaumonts Way in favour of a grant of a new tenancy agreement at 19 Corkill Place Papakura which process the tenant considers to be inordinately delayed causing harm to her and her children.
Under s 20J(1)(b) of the HRA, Part 1A of the Act applies to a person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. That likely encompasses Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities. If it did not, the claim would be under section 53 of Part 2 of the HRA which provides for different treatment in the provision of accommodation. Section 53 similarly requires proof of different treatment by reason of a prohibited ground.
A claim of discrimination under Part 1A of the HRA and section 53 HRA requires a claimant to prove that they have suffered a material disadvantage due to different treatment by reason of a prohibited ground, such as age, sex, or employment status.
No allegation or assertion has been made by the tenant that the disadvantage suffered by her was due to different treatment by reason of a prohibited ground, such as age, sex, or employment status.
The tenant claims her child has suffered material disadvantage (delay in obtaining more suitable premises) but she has not linked the alleged material disadvantage to any differential treatment or effect, nor to any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The tenant only asserts that she has been materially disadvantaged due to delayed actions or past inactions by her landlord. But it had not been shown that the tenant’s material disadvantage suffered was due to different treatment by reason of a prohibited ground, such as age, sex, or employment status.
Rather, the landlord recognised her child suffered adverse effects from living in a home near the train tracks and accelerated the tenant’s request for transfer/relocation in response to her child’s disability-related needs. That is not discrimination because the disability of the tenant’s child was actually a factor which accelerated the landlord’s processing of her request for transfer/relocation.
Considering the tenant’s first formal request for transfer to the landlord on 16 November 2020 and the transfer to 19 Corkill Place was concluded in a matter of 4 months in early March 2021, I do not consider there to be any material delay in the circumstances.
It has not been shown by the tenant, for instance, there was a pool of readily available properties for the tenant to relocate to instantaneously; there would have been other prospective tenants on the state housing list awaiting state housing placements and/or transfers versus available properties for them all, including this tenant with her child’s conditions.
The tenant has not established unlawful discrimination; this claim for exemplary damages which is grounded on an allegation of unlawful discrimination must fail.
For the avoidance of doubt, I also record that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to oversee the landlord’s internal process on transferring a tenant from one state house to another.
Short of unlawful discrimination, I am without jurisdiction to determine the manner in which the tenant’s request for transfer or relocation to another state house has been delayed or otherwise improperly processed by the landlord.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the RTA is limited to complaints grounded specifically under the RTA. Here, the only applicable ground raised by the tenant under the RTA is in respect of “discrimination” which complaint I find to be wholly unsubstantiated for the reasons I have set out above.
There being no plausible narrative that section 12 RTA applies, the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4346144 — Exemplary damages at 18A Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4346144 — Exemplary damages at 18A Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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