What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615257?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4615257?

Ult Is Dismissed. 3. Vision Property…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615257?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9265840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615257?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4615257?

Ult Is Dismissed. 3. Vision Property…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615257?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9265840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24B Croziers Road, St Albans, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615257 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

24B Croziers Road, St Albans, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615257 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615257. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ult is dismissed. 3. Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda M	$500.00		ult is dismissed. 3. Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda M

Claims and awards for application 4615257. Verify on MoJ.

ult is dismissed. 3. Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda M

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: ult is dismissed. 3. Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda M

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy for threat of assault is dismissed.
Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda Marie Wikiteria $500.00 as compensation for a loss of quiet enjoyment and use of the premises.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held today. Ms Chaplin and Ms Hamilton represented the landlord.
Both parties have provided considerable documentary evidence. I have considered it all though I need not refer to it in detail. Background
The tenancy started on 20 October 2020. It was initially managed by the owner of the property but changed to the current landlord company after one year. I will refer to the current landlord as Harcourts.
A drainage issue occurred at a neighbouring property in mid-June 2022 and then again on 29 June 2022, causing sewage to blow back through the tenant’s toilet, through parts of the house and over areas outside.
The tenant’s dog became ill following this event and died. The tenant blames the landlord for her dog’s death.
There were other repair and maintenance issues (the front door lock, the back door lock, and the oven) which were repaired after delays. The tenant paid for the back door lock repair.
The landlord agreed to replace the oven, but after an unusual series of events (the first replacement stove was stolen and the second damaged) the new stove has not been installed although the landlord has the appliance ready to be installed.
Communications around the delivery of the replacement stove resulted in the tenant sending Ms Chaplin a text message on 24 June 2023.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy based on what it considered was a threat of assault by the tenant.
The tenant then cross applied. She seeks compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain and repair the premises, breaches of her quiet enjoyment, for failing to properly clean up the sewage spillage and for a breach of the Health Homes Standards (HHS).
The issue for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Did the tenant threaten to assault the landlord as agent? •If so, should the tenancy be terminated? •Has the tenant established breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? •If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Should the tenant receive compensation?

Did the tenant threaten to assault the landlord as agent?

The tenant’s text to the landlord which the landlord relies on to establish a threat of assault says this: You are a nasty, despicable human being. Now it’s my fault re oven! My dog died! Should I have left him to choke or wait for a oven to arrive/not arrive! Why is my time ok to waste? Why is my timetable any of your fucking business, you fucking gaslighting lying bitch!! He died in my arms about the time you were yelling in our window, which in our rush to get to the vet, forgot to close. And I blame you bitch. I’ll deal with you later. Game on. Cold hearted bitch! Stay away from my home, that’s a fucking warning!!!!!! Despise you! By the way, you stupid cow, we own three cars, and it’s a 2-car garage, you do the math stupid gaslighting bitch. Consider me an enemy from here on in, this is personal!
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy under section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) where the tenant has assaulted or has threatened to assault various categories of persons including the landlord or any agent of the landlord.
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665 the High Court analysed what is required to establish a case for termination for assault or threat of assault. The Court said at [29] and [30]: To “threaten to assault” means just what is says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat, or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be to, or be passed on to, the person to whom the threat relates... Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made... the fact of a threat has to be enough.
The threat in the Collins case was a telephone message to an employee of the landlord. Referring to another employee the tenant said Do you want him to live much longer...Well, he’s not going to live much longer.
Here, the landlord relies on the tenant saying I’ll deal with you later. Game on....Stay away from my home, that’s a fucking warning!!!!!!...Consider me an enemy from here on in, this is personal!
Objectively viewed, the tenant’s text message was threatening. But it did not constitute a threat of assault – an expression of intent to do harm by use of force.
Ms Chaplin made the valid point that neither she nor her staff should be made to feel unsafe when performing their work. I agree. But that is not the statutory test for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) RTA.
The tenant expressed regret and remorse for her actions. She had just suffered the traumatic loss of her dog.
That does not justify the kind of vitriol expressed in her message, and at the hearing today when she repeatedly accused Ms Chaplin of lying and of being directly responsible for the death of her dog.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Given my finding that the tenant’s text message did not constitute a threat of assault, the answer to this question is no. Has the tenant established breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?
The tenant referred to delayed repair issues to the front door lock and to the oven. While delayed, both repairs have been done, she says about 4 months after Harcourts started managing the tenancy.
The landlord has a new oven ready to be delivered and installed (the third stove, the previous two having been stolen and damaged).
The landlord has had numerous contractors attend at the premises. The tenant said there had been at least 40 contractors’ visits. The tenant referred to evidence produced from some of the contractors as ‘lies’. She considers that the landlord’s staff and some of its tradespeople ‘are all liars’.
The tenant referred to the premises having condensation. But that does not show a landlord breach. The premises are single glazed. The tenant moved from Perth to Christchurch and by her own admission was shocked at the cold and dampness in winter.
The landlord had a HHS assessment completed. The premises have until July 2025 to be HHS compliant due to the commencement date of the tenancy.
Two issues were identified. Draught stopping around the front door and a repair to the bathroom fan ducting. Ms Chaplin said the work has not been done as the tradesperson has refused to go back having experienced difficulties with access.
I do not find that the landlord has committed breaches that amount to unlawful acts.
The tenant would have the Tribunal believe that she is the blameless victim of an uncaring (and more colourfully described) landlord. The tenant’s demeanour as I observed it and her communications do not support that.
Ms Chaplin said that the tenant was difficult to deal with, did not respond promptly to messages, and it was hard to arrange times for repairs and maintenance. She said some of the contractors had refused to go back to the premises.
Given the number of work orders issued, I find that the landlord did what it reasonably could. The drainage issue was not a landlord breach. The drainage contractor working on a neighbouring property caused the problem. The landlord took reasonable steps to respond. Any delays are best addressed by compensation, not by exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are like a fine; they are designed to punish and to deter. Even if a breach that amounts to an unlawful act is established, the person seeking damages must prove intent.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The landlord has not acted with intent. It has done its best faced with what it has experienced to be a difficult and at times aggressive tenant, even if the tenant considers that she has been the model of reasonableness.

Should the tenant receive compensation?

The tenant has established that she has suffered some periods of inconvenience for which she should receive compensation. Compensation, unlike exemplary damages, is not punitive. It simply recognises that the tenant has experience some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In this case there was a period when the tenant was inconvenienced by the sewage blowing back, caused by the contractors working on the neighbour’s property. I am satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable steps to deal with that.
The tenant says there are water leaks, and she is awaiting the installation of the new stove. The delay in that happening cannot be laid solely at the feet of the landlord.
Some repairs were delayed. But they were at a time when the owner was the landlord or when Harcourts first started managing the property. The tenant has not made any application against the owner as landlord.
There may or may not be an issue with the shower. The photographic evidence is in conflict. The inspection photos from 29 May 2023 show no obvious problem. The tenant’s photo she says was taken about a week ago shows an area of shower lining that has come away from the wall.
The landlord is on notice about this issue so any damage will not be able to be sheeted home to the tenant.
For the inconveniences the tenant has experienced, I award her compensation of $500.00, the main issue for compensation being the sewage spillage.
I am not prepared to make any work orders. The landlord has a stove ready to instal. If the parties cannot agree a time for the delivery and installation of the stove, there is not much the Tribunal can do.
The landlord, now on notice about leaking issues and the shower lining, should undertake an inspection to assess them. Again, because of the toxic nature of the relationship between the parties, the Tribunal sees no reason to intervene. In the absence of co-operation, the issues will remain unresolved until the end of the tenancy. Result
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy based on a threat of assault is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Tribunal awards the tenant compensation of $500.00 for the loss of enjoyment and inconvenience flowing a sewage spill.
No order is made for the reimbursement of the filing fees paid. The landlord’s application is unsuccessful, the tenant’s application only marginally successful. Comment
The tenant said she intends leaving this tenancy at the end of the next school term. That seems the most appropriate outcome. Some tenancies should end. This is one of them. The relationship between the parties has broken down to an extent where is appears irrecoverable.
A suggested solution would be for a different property manager within the landlord company to take over the management of the tenancy until it ends. That might act as a re-set.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615257. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ult is dismissed. 3. Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda M	$500.00		ult is dismissed. 3. Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda M

Claims and awards for application 4615257. Verify on MoJ.

ult is dismissed. 3. Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda M

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: ult is dismissed. 3. Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda M

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy for threat of assault is dismissed.
Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Robert Vallentine and Liselle Silver to pay Lynda Marie Wikiteria $500.00 as compensation for a loss of quiet enjoyment and use of the premises.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held today. Ms Chaplin and Ms Hamilton represented the landlord.
Both parties have provided considerable documentary evidence. I have considered it all though I need not refer to it in detail. Background
The tenancy started on 20 October 2020. It was initially managed by the owner of the property but changed to the current landlord company after one year. I will refer to the current landlord as Harcourts.
A drainage issue occurred at a neighbouring property in mid-June 2022 and then again on 29 June 2022, causing sewage to blow back through the tenant’s toilet, through parts of the house and over areas outside.
The tenant’s dog became ill following this event and died. The tenant blames the landlord for her dog’s death.
There were other repair and maintenance issues (the front door lock, the back door lock, and the oven) which were repaired after delays. The tenant paid for the back door lock repair.
The landlord agreed to replace the oven, but after an unusual series of events (the first replacement stove was stolen and the second damaged) the new stove has not been installed although the landlord has the appliance ready to be installed.
Communications around the delivery of the replacement stove resulted in the tenant sending Ms Chaplin a text message on 24 June 2023.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy based on what it considered was a threat of assault by the tenant.
The tenant then cross applied. She seeks compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain and repair the premises, breaches of her quiet enjoyment, for failing to properly clean up the sewage spillage and for a breach of the Health Homes Standards (HHS).
The issue for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Did the tenant threaten to assault the landlord as agent? •If so, should the tenancy be terminated? •Has the tenant established breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? •If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Should the tenant receive compensation?

Did the tenant threaten to assault the landlord as agent?

The tenant’s text to the landlord which the landlord relies on to establish a threat of assault says this: You are a nasty, despicable human being. Now it’s my fault re oven! My dog died! Should I have left him to choke or wait for a oven to arrive/not arrive! Why is my time ok to waste? Why is my timetable any of your fucking business, you fucking gaslighting lying bitch!! He died in my arms about the time you were yelling in our window, which in our rush to get to the vet, forgot to close. And I blame you bitch. I’ll deal with you later. Game on. Cold hearted bitch! Stay away from my home, that’s a fucking warning!!!!!! Despise you! By the way, you stupid cow, we own three cars, and it’s a 2-car garage, you do the math stupid gaslighting bitch. Consider me an enemy from here on in, this is personal!
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy under section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) where the tenant has assaulted or has threatened to assault various categories of persons including the landlord or any agent of the landlord.
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665 the High Court analysed what is required to establish a case for termination for assault or threat of assault. The Court said at [29] and [30]: To “threaten to assault” means just what is says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat, or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be to, or be passed on to, the person to whom the threat relates... Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made... the fact of a threat has to be enough.
The threat in the Collins case was a telephone message to an employee of the landlord. Referring to another employee the tenant said Do you want him to live much longer...Well, he’s not going to live much longer.
Here, the landlord relies on the tenant saying I’ll deal with you later. Game on....Stay away from my home, that’s a fucking warning!!!!!!...Consider me an enemy from here on in, this is personal!
Objectively viewed, the tenant’s text message was threatening. But it did not constitute a threat of assault – an expression of intent to do harm by use of force.
Ms Chaplin made the valid point that neither she nor her staff should be made to feel unsafe when performing their work. I agree. But that is not the statutory test for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) RTA.
The tenant expressed regret and remorse for her actions. She had just suffered the traumatic loss of her dog.
That does not justify the kind of vitriol expressed in her message, and at the hearing today when she repeatedly accused Ms Chaplin of lying and of being directly responsible for the death of her dog.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Given my finding that the tenant’s text message did not constitute a threat of assault, the answer to this question is no. Has the tenant established breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?
The tenant referred to delayed repair issues to the front door lock and to the oven. While delayed, both repairs have been done, she says about 4 months after Harcourts started managing the tenancy.
The landlord has a new oven ready to be delivered and installed (the third stove, the previous two having been stolen and damaged).
The landlord has had numerous contractors attend at the premises. The tenant said there had been at least 40 contractors’ visits. The tenant referred to evidence produced from some of the contractors as ‘lies’. She considers that the landlord’s staff and some of its tradespeople ‘are all liars’.
The tenant referred to the premises having condensation. But that does not show a landlord breach. The premises are single glazed. The tenant moved from Perth to Christchurch and by her own admission was shocked at the cold and dampness in winter.
The landlord had a HHS assessment completed. The premises have until July 2025 to be HHS compliant due to the commencement date of the tenancy.
Two issues were identified. Draught stopping around the front door and a repair to the bathroom fan ducting. Ms Chaplin said the work has not been done as the tradesperson has refused to go back having experienced difficulties with access.
I do not find that the landlord has committed breaches that amount to unlawful acts.
The tenant would have the Tribunal believe that she is the blameless victim of an uncaring (and more colourfully described) landlord. The tenant’s demeanour as I observed it and her communications do not support that.
Ms Chaplin said that the tenant was difficult to deal with, did not respond promptly to messages, and it was hard to arrange times for repairs and maintenance. She said some of the contractors had refused to go back to the premises.
Given the number of work orders issued, I find that the landlord did what it reasonably could. The drainage issue was not a landlord breach. The drainage contractor working on a neighbouring property caused the problem. The landlord took reasonable steps to respond. Any delays are best addressed by compensation, not by exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are like a fine; they are designed to punish and to deter. Even if a breach that amounts to an unlawful act is established, the person seeking damages must prove intent.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The landlord has not acted with intent. It has done its best faced with what it has experienced to be a difficult and at times aggressive tenant, even if the tenant considers that she has been the model of reasonableness.

Should the tenant receive compensation?

The tenant has established that she has suffered some periods of inconvenience for which she should receive compensation. Compensation, unlike exemplary damages, is not punitive. It simply recognises that the tenant has experience some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In this case there was a period when the tenant was inconvenienced by the sewage blowing back, caused by the contractors working on the neighbour’s property. I am satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable steps to deal with that.
The tenant says there are water leaks, and she is awaiting the installation of the new stove. The delay in that happening cannot be laid solely at the feet of the landlord.
Some repairs were delayed. But they were at a time when the owner was the landlord or when Harcourts first started managing the property. The tenant has not made any application against the owner as landlord.
There may or may not be an issue with the shower. The photographic evidence is in conflict. The inspection photos from 29 May 2023 show no obvious problem. The tenant’s photo she says was taken about a week ago shows an area of shower lining that has come away from the wall.
The landlord is on notice about this issue so any damage will not be able to be sheeted home to the tenant.
For the inconveniences the tenant has experienced, I award her compensation of $500.00, the main issue for compensation being the sewage spillage.
I am not prepared to make any work orders. The landlord has a stove ready to instal. If the parties cannot agree a time for the delivery and installation of the stove, there is not much the Tribunal can do.
The landlord, now on notice about leaking issues and the shower lining, should undertake an inspection to assess them. Again, because of the toxic nature of the relationship between the parties, the Tribunal sees no reason to intervene. In the absence of co-operation, the issues will remain unresolved until the end of the tenancy. Result
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy based on a threat of assault is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Tribunal awards the tenant compensation of $500.00 for the loss of enjoyment and inconvenience flowing a sewage spill.
No order is made for the reimbursement of the filing fees paid. The landlord’s application is unsuccessful, the tenant’s application only marginally successful. Comment
The tenant said she intends leaving this tenancy at the end of the next school term. That seems the most appropriate outcome. Some tenancies should end. This is one of them. The relationship between the parties has broken down to an extent where is appears irrecoverable.
A suggested solution would be for a different property manager within the landlord company to take over the management of the tenancy until it ends. That might act as a re-set.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615257 — 14-day notice at 24B Croziers Road, St Albans, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615257 — 14-day notice at 24B Croziers Road, St Albans, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant threaten to assault the landlord as agent?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the tenant receive compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant threaten to assault the landlord as agent?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the tenant receive compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions