What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4555809?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4555809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4555809?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4555809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9393215-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4555809?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4555809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4555809?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4555809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9393215-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Kinross Street, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4555809 — Harassment

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Jamie Beagle must pay May Kok $800.00 immediately, being legal costs following his unsuccessful application.

Reasons

On 10 August 2023 I issued a decision dismissing the tenant’s application against the landlord on this boarding house tenancy.
Mr Beagle applied to the Tribunal for compensation and/or exemplary damages of $26,000.00. He alleged discrimination by the landlord; unlawful eviction; breaches of his quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment; a breach of the requirements relating to tenancy agreements; retaliatory notice; the landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds; a failure to refund his bond; and a breach by the landlord of her ongoing obligations.
Having heard the evidence and submissions, I found that the tenant’s claims were opportunistic. I stopped short of finding that the application was vexatious, but only just.
The landlord was represented by counsel. Mr Beagle was afforded that opportunity as well, given the amount of his claim. He claims he could not find a lawyer to represent him. Application for costs
Counsel has sought costs from the tenant on behalf of the landlord of $8,270.50 including GST. I invited submissions from the parties on a timetable.
Mr Beagle has sent numerous emails to the Tribunal addressing his dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s decision.
As far as I can tell, his objection to an award of costs appears to be on the basis that he could not find legal representation; that he was never told he might be exposed to an order for costs; and that he is vulnerable due to his mental health issues. Costs in the Tenancy Tribunal
Costs are not routinely awarded in the Tenancy Tribunal. However, section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows the Tribunal to award costs where it considers that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought; where any of the parties was represented by counsel; or where the matter in dispute should have been settled at mediation.
Generally, costs are awarded in a range between 40-70% depending on various factors such as the complexity of the case, the actions of the parties, attempts at settlement, and the reasonableness of the claim for costs, objectively viewed.

Should the Tribunal award costs?

When I heard Mr Beagle’s application, I was unaware that he had previously made an almost identical application against another boarding house landlord. Counsel drew my attention to that case in their costs submissions. The Tribunal does not make its own enquiries in this regard.
In Beagle v McLeod [2023] NZTT Christchurch 4247828 the Tribunal considered similar claims against a landlord but dismissed Mr Beagle’s application for lack of proof.
Had the Tribunal been aware of that decision it might have concluded that Mr Beagle’s later applications was frivolous and vexatious.
Noted by counsel as well is that the landlord’s offers to settle the dispute were rejected by Mr Beagle. An adjournment was granted so the parties could attend mediation, but he would not settle the dispute.
So, the criteria for awarding costs are met in this case.
I do not accept Mr Beagle’s suggestion that he is vulnerable, could not receive legal advice, was unfamiliar with the Tribunal’s process, and never knew that he could be exposed to an order for costs.
Even after failing against another landlord earlier in the year, he made this application in what I found was an opportunistic attempt to get money.
It was entirely reasonable for the landlord to seek legal advice. Objectively viewed, she was in a vulnerable position due to other factors. Mr Beagle’s action suing her for $26,000.00 caused her great worry, stress and ill health. The testimonial evidence she produced was glowing as to her character and behaviour.
Addressing costs in a situation such as this is a challenge for the Tribunal. On the one hand, tenants should not be dissuaded from making claims against landlords for fear of an award of costs against them. But they should be deterred from making (repeated) applications that lack merit.
I need to consider that Mr Beagle is a beneficiary so is limited as to his means. The landlord can at least claim her legal costs as a deductible business cost.
Weighing all these matters, I have decided to award costs of $800.00 against Mr Beagle. That is only about 10% of the costs the landlord has incurred. Mr Beagle should reflect on that: he has caused her financial detriment by his unreasonable actions and his unwillingness to settle the dispute. Had he settled he would have received some money and no award of costs against him. His intransigence has seen him receive nothing and he must now pay costs.

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Jamie Beagle must pay May Kok $800.00 immediately, being legal costs following his unsuccessful application.

Reasons

On 10 August 2023 I issued a decision dismissing the tenant’s application against the landlord on this boarding house tenancy.
Mr Beagle applied to the Tribunal for compensation and/or exemplary damages of $26,000.00. He alleged discrimination by the landlord; unlawful eviction; breaches of his quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment; a breach of the requirements relating to tenancy agreements; retaliatory notice; the landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds; a failure to refund his bond; and a breach by the landlord of her ongoing obligations.
Having heard the evidence and submissions, I found that the tenant’s claims were opportunistic. I stopped short of finding that the application was vexatious, but only just.
The landlord was represented by counsel. Mr Beagle was afforded that opportunity as well, given the amount of his claim. He claims he could not find a lawyer to represent him. Application for costs
Counsel has sought costs from the tenant on behalf of the landlord of $8,270.50 including GST. I invited submissions from the parties on a timetable.
Mr Beagle has sent numerous emails to the Tribunal addressing his dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s decision.
As far as I can tell, his objection to an award of costs appears to be on the basis that he could not find legal representation; that he was never told he might be exposed to an order for costs; and that he is vulnerable due to his mental health issues. Costs in the Tenancy Tribunal
Costs are not routinely awarded in the Tenancy Tribunal. However, section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows the Tribunal to award costs where it considers that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought; where any of the parties was represented by counsel; or where the matter in dispute should have been settled at mediation.
Generally, costs are awarded in a range between 40-70% depending on various factors such as the complexity of the case, the actions of the parties, attempts at settlement, and the reasonableness of the claim for costs, objectively viewed.

Should the Tribunal award costs?

When I heard Mr Beagle’s application, I was unaware that he had previously made an almost identical application against another boarding house landlord. Counsel drew my attention to that case in their costs submissions. The Tribunal does not make its own enquiries in this regard.
In Beagle v McLeod [2023] NZTT Christchurch 4247828 the Tribunal considered similar claims against a landlord but dismissed Mr Beagle’s application for lack of proof.
Had the Tribunal been aware of that decision it might have concluded that Mr Beagle’s later applications was frivolous and vexatious.
Noted by counsel as well is that the landlord’s offers to settle the dispute were rejected by Mr Beagle. An adjournment was granted so the parties could attend mediation, but he would not settle the dispute.
So, the criteria for awarding costs are met in this case.
I do not accept Mr Beagle’s suggestion that he is vulnerable, could not receive legal advice, was unfamiliar with the Tribunal’s process, and never knew that he could be exposed to an order for costs.
Even after failing against another landlord earlier in the year, he made this application in what I found was an opportunistic attempt to get money.
It was entirely reasonable for the landlord to seek legal advice. Objectively viewed, she was in a vulnerable position due to other factors. Mr Beagle’s action suing her for $26,000.00 caused her great worry, stress and ill health. The testimonial evidence she produced was glowing as to her character and behaviour.
Addressing costs in a situation such as this is a challenge for the Tribunal. On the one hand, tenants should not be dissuaded from making claims against landlords for fear of an award of costs against them. But they should be deterred from making (repeated) applications that lack merit.
I need to consider that Mr Beagle is a beneficiary so is limited as to his means. The landlord can at least claim her legal costs as a deductible business cost.
Weighing all these matters, I have decided to award costs of $800.00 against Mr Beagle. That is only about 10% of the costs the landlord has incurred. Mr Beagle should reflect on that: he has caused her financial detriment by his unreasonable actions and his unwillingness to settle the dispute. Had he settled he would have received some money and no award of costs against him. His intransigence has seen him receive nothing and he must now pay costs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4555809 — Harassment at 18 Kinross Street, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4555809 — Harassment at 18 Kinross Street, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions