What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4550322?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4550322?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550322?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9154419-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4550322?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4550322?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550322?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9154419-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 809, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4550322 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550322 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unauthorised Entry	$700.00	Unauthorised Entry
Filing Fee Reimbursement	$20.44	Filing Fee Reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$720.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Jeyanthin Thiagalingam must pay [The tenant/s] $720.44 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. There was no attendance by the landlord.
Unfortunately for the tenant this is not the first time she has had to come to the Tribunal regarding issues with her tenancy. The tenant was awarded compensation on 11 December 2022 as a result of unlawful entry by tradespeople and the building manager.
The tenant has filed a new application claiming more of the same type of behaviour.
Without going into detail the tenant suffers from extreme anxiety and has a number of challenges in respect of this. I have a great deal of sympathy for her and the immense day-to-day pressures she faces.
The issues have again arisen because the building manager and various contractors who have been undertaking essential building maintenance have failed to ensure that the landlord is aware of their intended entries into the tenant’s apartment. They also appear to have an ongoing misapprehension that they are entitled to enter the tenant’s apartment without her knowledge or consent.
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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
Yet again, it is not the landlord who has breached the tenant’s rights. It is either contractors or employees of the body corporate (or both) who have done so.
The landlord, as a member of the body corporate themselves, must ensure that any agents of the body corporate act in a way that does not result in a breach of the tenant’s rights.
The first claim relates to the alleged interference of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment with the unauthorised visit by a pest controller. In a notice dated 22 February 2023 the building residents were notified of the annual pest control inspection. This was to take place between 6 March and 17 March 2023 between the hours of 10am and 3pm. Formal notice of this was emailed to the tenant on 1 March 2023.
The tenant had advised the landlord by email that she did not want the pest controller to come enter her apartment. The landlord responded by stating that they would pass the message to the building manager. Unfortunately, the pest controllers turned up nevertheless on 2 March 2023 while the tenant was not home. This caused the tenant significant stress knowing that someone had been in her apartment without her authority, especially having regard to the landlord’s assurance that the pest controller would not enter the property. The entry into the tenant’s apartment was caught on the tenant’s security camera. Footage of this was provided with her application. The still footage provided clearly shows the two pest controllers spraying the inside of her apartment.
Having assessed the evidence provided I am satisfied that entry by the pest controllers, although unwanted, was lawful and there is no issue with it. The required notice had been provided to the tenant and this entry was pursuant to the requirements of the Unit Titles Act.
Accordingly, this claim by the tenant is dismissed.
The second claim relates to the alleged unauthorised entry of a plumber. The tenant had notified the landlord of a leak in her bathroom. In an email to the landlord dated 31 January 2023 the tenant stated that she had just gone into her bathroom and found a puddle on the floor. She stated that it appeared to be recent as it was not present earlier in the day. Approximately one hour later the landlord replied with confirmation that this had been passed on to the building manager and that he would be in contact with her. Within no time whatsoever a plumber entered her apartment without notice.
I find that this entry by the plumber was unauthorised. There are limited grounds for entry without notice by the landlord and contractors. They can only enter after having given the required notice or with the consent of the tenant. They can also enter without notice in the case of an emergency, which clearly this was not.
Accordingly, I find this claim proven.
The third claim involved the alleged unauthorised entry by the building manager when the tenant’s intercom needed repairing. In an email to the landlord dated 5 May 2023 the tenant advised that her apartment intercom was not working. The landlord replied stating that they would come back to her in respect of this. Further emails dated 9 and 10 May 2023 were sent by the tenant to the landlord complaining that she was still to hear anything regarding this. The tenant’s email on 10 May certainly highlighted her frustration over the delay in having this repair carried out. Later that same day the landlord emailed the tenant to confirm that a service technician would attend on 22 May to repair the intercom. In the same email the landlord confirmed that Impression Real Estate would be present to supervise the repair. She then asked to change the date to either the 23 rd or the 24 th as she did not want to be present. After several emails it was rescheduled to 25 May.
On 24 May the landlord emailed the tenant advising that he would be present the following day with the repairman whilst they repair the intercom. Unfortunately, it turned out that the building manager was also present in her apartment during the repair. Evidence of this was provided with the application in the form of still video footage.
In an email dated 23 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that the Body Corporate had ordered the building manager that he not have any access to the tenant’s apartment at all. Evidence was provided by the tenant in the form of numerous emails confirming that she did not want the building manager to have access to her apartment. The building manager would have been under no misapprehension that his entry into the tenant’s apartment was unauthorised. And given that the landlord was present to supervise the repairman I find that the building manager’s presence was also unnecessary.
Accordingly, I find this claim relating to the unauthorised entry by the building manager proven.
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. Given the balancing exercise which I have already noted I award a global amount to reflect the two breaches.
I must also balance with tenant’s complaints with the obligations of the landlord to maintain the premises. Also, under the Unit Titles Act the Body Corporate may access at all reasonable hours any Unit to enable it to carry out repairs and maintenance under this section. See section 138(3) Unit Titles Act 2010.
I also note that for the most part the landlord has done their very best under difficult circumstances to satisfy their obligations while at the same time respecting the peace and privacy of the tenant. I accept that this has not been easy at times. That being said that landlord needs to ensure that contractors and employees of the Body Corporate do not enter premises unauthorised.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s claim for fish expenses is refused. As noted above I find that the entry by the pest controllers was lawful. Furthermore, the tenant says that her pet fish died as a result of the bug spray. Unfortunately the evidence presented does not support the amount claimed.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I will reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550322 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unauthorised Entry	$700.00	Unauthorised Entry
Filing Fee Reimbursement	$20.44	Filing Fee Reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$720.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Jeyanthin Thiagalingam must pay [The tenant/s] $720.44 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. There was no attendance by the landlord.
Unfortunately for the tenant this is not the first time she has had to come to the Tribunal regarding issues with her tenancy. The tenant was awarded compensation on 11 December 2022 as a result of unlawful entry by tradespeople and the building manager.
The tenant has filed a new application claiming more of the same type of behaviour.
Without going into detail the tenant suffers from extreme anxiety and has a number of challenges in respect of this. I have a great deal of sympathy for her and the immense day-to-day pressures she faces.
The issues have again arisen because the building manager and various contractors who have been undertaking essential building maintenance have failed to ensure that the landlord is aware of their intended entries into the tenant’s apartment. They also appear to have an ongoing misapprehension that they are entitled to enter the tenant’s apartment without her knowledge or consent.
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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
Yet again, it is not the landlord who has breached the tenant’s rights. It is either contractors or employees of the body corporate (or both) who have done so.
The landlord, as a member of the body corporate themselves, must ensure that any agents of the body corporate act in a way that does not result in a breach of the tenant’s rights.
The first claim relates to the alleged interference of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment with the unauthorised visit by a pest controller. In a notice dated 22 February 2023 the building residents were notified of the annual pest control inspection. This was to take place between 6 March and 17 March 2023 between the hours of 10am and 3pm. Formal notice of this was emailed to the tenant on 1 March 2023.
The tenant had advised the landlord by email that she did not want the pest controller to come enter her apartment. The landlord responded by stating that they would pass the message to the building manager. Unfortunately, the pest controllers turned up nevertheless on 2 March 2023 while the tenant was not home. This caused the tenant significant stress knowing that someone had been in her apartment without her authority, especially having regard to the landlord’s assurance that the pest controller would not enter the property. The entry into the tenant’s apartment was caught on the tenant’s security camera. Footage of this was provided with her application. The still footage provided clearly shows the two pest controllers spraying the inside of her apartment.
Having assessed the evidence provided I am satisfied that entry by the pest controllers, although unwanted, was lawful and there is no issue with it. The required notice had been provided to the tenant and this entry was pursuant to the requirements of the Unit Titles Act.
Accordingly, this claim by the tenant is dismissed.
The second claim relates to the alleged unauthorised entry of a plumber. The tenant had notified the landlord of a leak in her bathroom. In an email to the landlord dated 31 January 2023 the tenant stated that she had just gone into her bathroom and found a puddle on the floor. She stated that it appeared to be recent as it was not present earlier in the day. Approximately one hour later the landlord replied with confirmation that this had been passed on to the building manager and that he would be in contact with her. Within no time whatsoever a plumber entered her apartment without notice.
I find that this entry by the plumber was unauthorised. There are limited grounds for entry without notice by the landlord and contractors. They can only enter after having given the required notice or with the consent of the tenant. They can also enter without notice in the case of an emergency, which clearly this was not.
Accordingly, I find this claim proven.
The third claim involved the alleged unauthorised entry by the building manager when the tenant’s intercom needed repairing. In an email to the landlord dated 5 May 2023 the tenant advised that her apartment intercom was not working. The landlord replied stating that they would come back to her in respect of this. Further emails dated 9 and 10 May 2023 were sent by the tenant to the landlord complaining that she was still to hear anything regarding this. The tenant’s email on 10 May certainly highlighted her frustration over the delay in having this repair carried out. Later that same day the landlord emailed the tenant to confirm that a service technician would attend on 22 May to repair the intercom. In the same email the landlord confirmed that Impression Real Estate would be present to supervise the repair. She then asked to change the date to either the 23 rd or the 24 th as she did not want to be present. After several emails it was rescheduled to 25 May.
On 24 May the landlord emailed the tenant advising that he would be present the following day with the repairman whilst they repair the intercom. Unfortunately, it turned out that the building manager was also present in her apartment during the repair. Evidence of this was provided with the application in the form of still video footage.
In an email dated 23 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that the Body Corporate had ordered the building manager that he not have any access to the tenant’s apartment at all. Evidence was provided by the tenant in the form of numerous emails confirming that she did not want the building manager to have access to her apartment. The building manager would have been under no misapprehension that his entry into the tenant’s apartment was unauthorised. And given that the landlord was present to supervise the repairman I find that the building manager’s presence was also unnecessary.
Accordingly, I find this claim relating to the unauthorised entry by the building manager proven.
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. Given the balancing exercise which I have already noted I award a global amount to reflect the two breaches.
I must also balance with tenant’s complaints with the obligations of the landlord to maintain the premises. Also, under the Unit Titles Act the Body Corporate may access at all reasonable hours any Unit to enable it to carry out repairs and maintenance under this section. See section 138(3) Unit Titles Act 2010.
I also note that for the most part the landlord has done their very best under difficult circumstances to satisfy their obligations while at the same time respecting the peace and privacy of the tenant. I accept that this has not been easy at times. That being said that landlord needs to ensure that contractors and employees of the Body Corporate do not enter premises unauthorised.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s claim for fish expenses is refused. As noted above I find that the entry by the pest controllers was lawful. Furthermore, the tenant says that her pet fish died as a result of the bug spray. Unfortunately the evidence presented does not support the amount claimed.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I will reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550322 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 809, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550322 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 809, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions