How much money was awarded in case 4632374?

Consent Order Award: $100.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632374?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9308167-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4632374?

Consent Order Award: $100.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632374?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9308167-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Wakelin Street, Carterton 5713 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4632374 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4632374?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632374 — net $100.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Consent order award	$100.30	Consent order award
Net award	$100.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.30

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

By consent, an order is made requiring Robert Lendrum and Kirsty Lendrum to pay Rowanne Natalie Bowden the sum of $100.30 immediately for water consumption.

The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended with her partner, Stuart McCoshim who addressed the application. I allowed the tenants’ advocate, Douglas McIvor, known as Mike, to speak on their behalf.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy. The application listed several grievances, but at the hearing Mr McCoshim confirmed that the basis for the application for termination is the issuing of three notices for anti-social behaviour and the difficulties with access to the property.

The tenancy commenced on 28 November 2022. At that time, it was being managed by an agent. Because the tenant Ms Lendrum uses a wheelchair, her occupational therapist and staff from ACC have also been involved in the tenancy. The premises were deemed suitable for her, and the landlords were happy to work with the various stakeholders to enable the tenancy to proceed.

On 27 February 2023 the agent advised the landlord that she would no longer manage the property and so the landlord took over management.

The tenants have raised concerns about the property during the tenancy, but they have not always made it easy for the landlords to attend to them. This has led to the landlord issuing anti-social behaviour notices. Excessive use of water

The tenants agreed to pay the water bill of $100.30. Anti-social behaviour

The landlord filed three anti-social behaviour notices that had been served on the tenant. The tenant did not dispute the content of the notices but did not accept that his behaviour amounted to anti-social behaviour.

Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.

The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

In a timeline provided for the hearing, the landlord said that on 3 February 2022 the property manager issued an anti-social behaviour notice. No copy of that was provided to the Tribunal. First Notice 19 June 2022

The first notice was issued following a scheduled meeting and property inspection. The background and events are all set out in the notice, which I have produced in full. The anti-social behaviour is described as follows: Email from Acc case manager J Clark-Collier sent on Mon, Jun 12, 2023, at 4:28 pm advised that she had assurance from your advocate Mike Dixon- Mclver that you would agree to the visit of myself (landlord) for the purposes of an inspection of the property. In addition, Carole (OT) and the Acc builder would be present, to confirm the flooring installation and evaluate the changes needed for the Highlander unit. The meeting was set for 1:30pm on Thursday 15th June 2023. I duly arrived just before 1:30 pm and parked outside the property, noting that your van (sliding door open) was in the driveway and Carole and the builder were waiting in her car. I left my car to speak with her and she indicated that she didn't think Mike Dixon had arrived, and that we were early. 1:30pm passed, and Carole and the ACC builder, Peter, and I slowly walked on the pavement toward number 4. Carole noticed a sign on the door that was not legible from the pavement and so I walked up to the front door to read it. It read: "UNDER Icolaton for a period for 7 day Date 10/6/23. Do NOT ENTER RING 0284162216" I took a picture of it and shared the information with Carole. I walked back to the pavement, wondering what was going on. Without any greeting, you appeared from the front door, and walked down the ramp, holding out your phone in front of you, walking towards Carols vehicle, possibly taking a video. You were silent but the grimace on your face showed extreme anger. None of us were sure what you were doing. We felt extremely uneasy and unsafe, as what we were witnessing was inexplicable, peculiar and extremely anti-social. I called out a greeting to you, which you ignored, and you just continued to show no recognition or acknowledgment of our presence on the pavement. I asked you where Mike was, and you responded by saying angrily that you did not know him. Carole and the builder, saw and heard this too. I again asked where Mike Dixon was, and again you shook your head angrily, and stated that you didn't know him. I looked at Carole in exasperation and she indicated that she could not go further with the matter under the circumstances, and she and Peter walked towards her vehicle, to leave. I turned to walk to my car and stated that you should let me know in writing when I could do the inspection. I reached my vehicle and took the driver's seat and closed the door. You came to my car window and were shouting angrily and waving the notice from the front door, saying that "it was in writing". I know that you were angry as your face was contorted and you were shouting. I was scared and did not open the window or door. You then thrust the notice under my windscreen wiper and stormed off. I retrieved the note from my windscreen, started my vehicle, and left. I was visibly shaken. Your conduct from the time you emerged from the house was experienced as irrational and uncivil, rude and disrespectful. Your behaviour then became abusive and threatening to the point where three independent people who witnessed your behaviour and actions, got into their vehicles, and left without being allowed to continue with matters that were finalised for imminent installation for Kirsty’s benefit.

It would have been helpful to the tenant and to the Tribunal if the narrative had been limited to notifying the tenant of his behaviour that was deemed anti- social.

I have distilled the following: a. The tenant shouted angrily and waved the notice that had been on the door. b. He thrust the notice under her windscreen c. His behaviour was abusive and threatening. d. His behaviour was irrational, uncivil, rude and disrespectful.

The landlord did not elaborate on what threats or were made or in what manner the tenant was abusive.

As noted above, anti-social behaviour is defined in the Act as harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

Being angry alone is not anti-social behaviour. The type of conduct that is found to meet the definition is something more than being angry or rude to the landlord. It usually involves a more significant disturbance than was described.

I accept that the landlord was upset and frightened by the tenant’s behaviour and the tenant should be aware of the impact of his emotional outburst on others. He did not behave reasonably. However, I do not find that his behaviour meets the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’. Second notice 11 July 2023

The second notice is also a long narrative, describing a routine inspection on 5 July 2023 that had been agreed to and referring to the tenant’s email correspondence with maintenance issues, which for some reason, the landlord did not want to discuss at the inspection. The date and time of the alleged anti- social behaviour was 5 July at 1pm.

From what I could glean, the conduct complained of is that the tenant did not acknowledge the landlord’s presence or greet her or her partner, and the tenant’s daughter then followed them around using her phone to take a video recording of the visit. They considered it unusual and unusual and invasive of their privacy.

The notice also refers to an email received the night before the inspection: ...The night before the inspection, at 8.07 pm, I received an email from Robert with a list of his ‘maintenance’ issues, embodied in a communication that indicated it was to be taken as a 14-day remedy notification. This communication from Robert is experienced as inappropriate, unreasonable, and not informed.

Robert concluded the mail by stating that because of my ‘unwillingness to discuss routine maintenance’, ‘the only way forward is RTA Mediation at first’. I take exception to the manner in which he chooses to communicate – which is experienced as aggressive and rude, perhaps even mildly threatening, while at the same time being apologetic. I am distressed by his repeatedly problematic behaviour which is considered anti-social and vexatious.

The Tribunal does not condone rude or threatening communication from tenants, but the landlord has not established that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour. Not greeting the landlord or referring in communication to a possible mediation is not “anti-social behaviour”. I do not find this is a valid notice. Third notice: 18 July 2023

The next notice was dated 18 July 2022 and is a five-page document in which the landlord sets out a number of communications between her and the tenant. It starts with her reproduction of an email dated 4 July 2023 that the tenant had sent to the landlord in which he gave her several 14-day notices to remedy certain things in the premises. In the notice the landlord replies to the various items and reproduces several communications between them.

It is difficult to discern the anti-social behaviour complained of. On page 4 of the notice, the date and location of the anti-social behaviour is stated as 8 July 2023. Immediately above that are the following two paragraphs.: Your see-sawing of identifying problems and then preventing solutions have been the cause of much rework and email communication. The events leading up to and culminating in the thwarted tradesperson appointment is considered anti-social and unacceptable behaviour. Robert, in conclusion, as previously communicated to you, the little old cottage that you rent is dear to my heart and has provided a happy home and a pleasant experience for previous tenants. The last anti-social notification also stated that your motives have become questionable, and I find there is no longer trust and confidence in this tenant/landlord relationship.

I could not ascertain what the tenant was alleged to have done on 8 July 2023. The landlord is upset at the difficulties in her dealings with the tenant who at times has made demands but then not co-operated with her attempts to address those. Frustrating as that is for the landlord, I do not find that it is anti- social behaviour.

I have determined that the landlord has not established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission on any of the occasions.

The application for termination for anti-social behaviour is dismissed. Obstruction of inspections

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord says that the tenant has refused access to the property on a number of occasions. They: a. denied access to the premises on 14 June for a routine inspection because one of the children had suspected covid. b. on 15 June access was denied as described in the first anti-social behaviour notice. c. refused an inspection on 1 July 2023 d. on 6 July refused to allow a plumber to visit for water leak detection, after there had been a large water bill e. on 7 July the tenants complained that there was sewage on the lawn. When the landlord visited the property, it was barricaded on the east and west side f. issued a Trespass Notice.

The first two denials of access may have been reasonable. However, the tenant should have undertaken covid tests and informed the landlord of the result and that should have happened before access was denied or a visit was made.

The landlord could have proceeded with the inspection on 1 July and the plumber’s visit on 6 July.

The tenant said that the property was not barricaded on 7 July, but was fenced off for a dog. The tenant should not have made it difficult for the landlord to attend to the complaint of sewage.

The landlord is entitled to visit the property in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and a Trespass Notice does not override those rights. Section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the circumstances in which the landlord may enter the property.

In particular, a landlord may enter the premises to conduct an inspection provided the tenant has been given between 48 hours and 14 days’ notice. That means that provided the proper notice has been given, the landlord may go inside the property. It must be between 8am and 7pm. (See section 48(2)(b)).

A landlord may also enter between those hours for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of the premises, provided the landlords has given the tenant at least 24 hours’ notice and provided the reason for entry. (See section 48(2)(d)).

If the tenant fails to allow the landlord to enter the premises, without reasonable excuse, the tenant commits an “unlawful act” under the Act.

Premises does not include the land or facilities. That means that the landlord can go on to the land, (without going inside the property), without giving any notice.

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find that the tenants have breached their obligations. They must allow the landlord access to the premises in the circumstances outlined in section 48.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

I find that these breaches are capable of remedy. The landlord was entitled to enter the property in accordance with the notices. The landlord could also send the tenant a notice warning them about the likely consequences of this continual breach. She has not done so. Instead, she has served anti-social behaviour notices. That is not the appropriate response to the tenant’s challenging behaviour.

The breaches are capable of remedy. Both parties need to inform themselves of their respective rights and responsibilities under the Act. a. In particular, the tenant may not frustrate the landlord’s efforts to exercise their rights and responsibilities. That includes the landlord’s right to inspect their property and attend to maintenance as well as their obligation to do so. b. The landlord needs to follow the correct processes for notification not of breaches.

Under the Act, there are a number of grounds on which a landlord may seek termination of a tenancy. The application and notice of hearing for this case make no mention of section 55B of the Act, which allows for termination where it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. That needs to be balanced against hardship to the tenant. If the tenant embarks on a course of obstructive and/or abusive behaviour, there may come a point at which the circumstances of this tenancy are grounds for termination and/or payment of exemplary damages to the landlord.

At this stage the landlord has not established proper grounds for termination of the tenancy and the application is dismissed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632374 — net $100.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Consent order award	$100.30	Consent order award
Net award	$100.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.30