What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639410?

The tribunal order states: Central West Property Management Limited As Agent For Valencia Nominees

How much money was awarded in case 4639410?

Compensation: $625.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $30.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639410?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9681428-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639410?

The tribunal order states: Central West Property Management Limited As Agent For Valencia Nominees

How much money was awarded in case 4639410?

Compensation: $625.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $30.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639410?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9681428-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 2B Home Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639410 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639410 — net $955.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation reduced rent 25 weeks up to 24.11.2023	$625.00	Compensation reduced rent 25 weeks up to 24.11.2023
Compensation CCTV camera	$200.00	Compensation CCTV camera
Compensation Opaque film for windows	$30.00	Compensation Opaque film for windows
Compensation Locks for letterbox	$20.00	Compensation Locks for letterbox
Compensation Blackout curtain	$60.00	Compensation Blackout curtain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$955.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$955.44

Order

Central West Property Management Limited As Agent For Valencia Nominees Limited Scott Hickey must pay Felino Alessandro Turner and Waikahu Te Utaiho Heke $955.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Felino Alessandro Turner and Waikahu Te Utaiho Heke (“the tenant”) claim the landlord has breached their requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, (“the Act”) section 45(1)(e), by not taking all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
Breaching section 45(1)(e) of the Act is not an unlawful act and exemplary damages are not available as a remedy.
The tenancy began on 7 April 2023. The property is a converted weatherboard house that has been divided into three units under the one roof, in Grey Lynn. All units share a common yard. Mr Turner lives at unit 1. The tenant’s complaint and the landlord’s response
Mr Turner stated that troubles with the tenants at unit 3 and their associates began the day after his tenancy began. Mr Turner had a washing machine delivered to his doorstep. He saw a person who he later established was a person called “David” take the washing machine and roll it into unit 3. Mr Turner involved the police, and the washing machine was recovered.
Mr Turner then installed a security camera that recorded incidents that occurred on his doorstep and in the common area in front of his unit. These incidents involved multiple occasions of people urinating on the outside wall of his unit, people peering in through the windows of his unit, several occasions where people exposed themselves directly to his security camera, and incidents of people from unit 3 repeatedly looking in Mr Turner’s mailbox. The people on the CCTV footage were the same people Mr Turner saw coming and going on a regular basis from unit 3. Mr Turner became familiar with some of their names, and their relationships to each other and one of the people he believes was the tenancy holder at unit 3.
There were also more serious incidents. On one occasion Mr Turner heard loud noises in his ceiling and when he investigated the ceiling cavity, he saw a person he recognised from unit 3, trying to hide. This person returned to the ceiling hatch for Unit 3. Mr Turner called the police, who attended.
On another occasion Mr Turner ordered Uber Eats and as the delivery vehicle arrived, Mr Turner saw a person he knew by name from Unit 3 approach the vehicle and collect his delivery. On making enquiries to the restaurant he was advised that someone using his own name had collected the delivery.
On another occasion one of the acquaintances of the tenant at unit 3 approached Mr Turner and said “Suck my dick. Next time I see you I’ll beat the shit out of you, you dumb American”.
There were other incidents as well involving loud arguments in the common area, fighting, throwing Mr Turner’s rubbish bin across the yard, making hand signals that Mr Turner discerned to be gang signals at his security camera, surrounding Mr Turner when he collected Uber Eats deliveries, and behaviour which Mr Turner believed pointed to drug dealing happening at unit 3.
Police attended at unit 3 on at least two occasions following incidents with Mr Turner. Mr Turner saw a K9 unit attend on another occasion, and saw a person being taken away in custody following the incident of the person in his ceiling.
In all, Mr Turner pointed to 25 incidents with people he could identify from Unit 3 over the course of his relatively short tenancy so far.
Mr Turner stated that he expected better communication from the landlord about what was being done about his problems with the tenants from unit 3. He stated that following the incident with the tenant in the ceiling he heard nothing from the landlord for three days, and that for four or five incidents he never received a response.
Mr Turner stated that he would like to be reimbursed for the costs he necessarily incurred in the course of protecting his privacy and the protection of his property from the tenants at unit 3. This included the CCTV camera, opaque film to cover his windows, and locks for his letterbox.
Mr Turner stated he was seeking a reduced rental because he didn’t feel he was able to use the common area yard, he didn’t feel safe going outside and he didn’t feel he could safely leave his partner alone in the premises, or leave the premises altogether without there being risk of further offences against his partner or their property. In effect Mr Turner was experiencing a significant incursion on the reasonable amenity of the tenancy.
For the landlord Mr Hickey accepted that he was also the property manager for unit 3, but that he had only begun managing the tenancies in June 2023 and he hadn’t been involved in selecting the tenants. He pointed out that although he didn’t question Mr Turner’s veracity, the security camera that Mr Turner had installed could not see people coming and going from unit 3.
Mr Hickey stated that he had responded to every notification that Mr Turner sent and that when he felt he had sufficient cause, he had served several 14-day breach notices on the tenant at unit 3. In his view, he had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants caused any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of Mr Turner in the use of the premises.
Mr Hickey stated that he believed at least one of the incidents was retaliatory in nature against Mr Turner. Discussion and decision
These incidents were not limited to nuisance. The ongoing nature of the incidents some of which were serious, formed a pattern which amounted to harassment.
Harassment is behaviour directed against a specific person and includes doing a specified act to the other person on at least 2 separate occasions within a period of 12 months, see the Harassment Act 1997, section 3.
Harassment also means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Most of the 25 events that Mr Turner reported involved specified acts as defined in section 4 of the Harassment Act 1997.
The landlord was aware of the nature of the breaches of the tenant and their associates from unit 3. The landlord had excellent information coming from Mr Turner in the form of written notifications supported by CCTV footage. The landlord was also aware of police involvement.
Because of the frequency and seriousness of the incidents, all of which involved the tenants and/or their associates from unit 3 and Mr Turner as the victim, and for which there was no suggestion that Mr Turner had provoked or retaliated in anyway, I find there was an increased responsibility to address the risks that the tenant and their associates at unit 3 were posing to Mr Turner’s and Ms Heke’s peace, comfort and privacy in relation to their tenancy, than may usually be the case.
I find the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants caused or permitted any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
Locks for the letterbox, opaque film for windows and CCTV cameras are all standard security devices that the landlord could have employed. CCTV cameras installed and monitored by the landlord rather than the tenant, may have served to deter the offensive behaviour of the tenants at unit 3 being directed at Mr Turner. Better communication with Mr Turner may have led to solutions being implemented at an earlier stage.
Harassment against one tenant by another is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages are available on an application to the Tribunal by the landlord, see section 40(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This was also a course of action available to the landlord.
The compensation ordered is as reimbursement for a security camera ($200.00), opaque film for the glass, ($30.00), locks for letterbox, ($20.00), black out curtains ($60.00), and loss of amenity calculated at $25.00 per week for 25 weeks from the beginning of June 2023 until the date of the hearing.
Because Felino Alessandro Turner, Waikahu Te Utaiho Heke has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639410 — net $955.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation reduced rent 25 weeks up to 24.11.2023	$625.00	Compensation reduced rent 25 weeks up to 24.11.2023
Compensation CCTV camera	$200.00	Compensation CCTV camera
Compensation Opaque film for windows	$30.00	Compensation Opaque film for windows
Compensation Locks for letterbox	$20.00	Compensation Locks for letterbox
Compensation Blackout curtain	$60.00	Compensation Blackout curtain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$955.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$955.44

Order

Central West Property Management Limited As Agent For Valencia Nominees Limited Scott Hickey must pay Felino Alessandro Turner and Waikahu Te Utaiho Heke $955.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Felino Alessandro Turner and Waikahu Te Utaiho Heke (“the tenant”) claim the landlord has breached their requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, (“the Act”) section 45(1)(e), by not taking all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
Breaching section 45(1)(e) of the Act is not an unlawful act and exemplary damages are not available as a remedy.
The tenancy began on 7 April 2023. The property is a converted weatherboard house that has been divided into three units under the one roof, in Grey Lynn. All units share a common yard. Mr Turner lives at unit 1. The tenant’s complaint and the landlord’s response
Mr Turner stated that troubles with the tenants at unit 3 and their associates began the day after his tenancy began. Mr Turner had a washing machine delivered to his doorstep. He saw a person who he later established was a person called “David” take the washing machine and roll it into unit 3. Mr Turner involved the police, and the washing machine was recovered.
Mr Turner then installed a security camera that recorded incidents that occurred on his doorstep and in the common area in front of his unit. These incidents involved multiple occasions of people urinating on the outside wall of his unit, people peering in through the windows of his unit, several occasions where people exposed themselves directly to his security camera, and incidents of people from unit 3 repeatedly looking in Mr Turner’s mailbox. The people on the CCTV footage were the same people Mr Turner saw coming and going on a regular basis from unit 3. Mr Turner became familiar with some of their names, and their relationships to each other and one of the people he believes was the tenancy holder at unit 3.
There were also more serious incidents. On one occasion Mr Turner heard loud noises in his ceiling and when he investigated the ceiling cavity, he saw a person he recognised from unit 3, trying to hide. This person returned to the ceiling hatch for Unit 3. Mr Turner called the police, who attended.
On another occasion Mr Turner ordered Uber Eats and as the delivery vehicle arrived, Mr Turner saw a person he knew by name from Unit 3 approach the vehicle and collect his delivery. On making enquiries to the restaurant he was advised that someone using his own name had collected the delivery.
On another occasion one of the acquaintances of the tenant at unit 3 approached Mr Turner and said “Suck my dick. Next time I see you I’ll beat the shit out of you, you dumb American”.
There were other incidents as well involving loud arguments in the common area, fighting, throwing Mr Turner’s rubbish bin across the yard, making hand signals that Mr Turner discerned to be gang signals at his security camera, surrounding Mr Turner when he collected Uber Eats deliveries, and behaviour which Mr Turner believed pointed to drug dealing happening at unit 3.
Police attended at unit 3 on at least two occasions following incidents with Mr Turner. Mr Turner saw a K9 unit attend on another occasion, and saw a person being taken away in custody following the incident of the person in his ceiling.
In all, Mr Turner pointed to 25 incidents with people he could identify from Unit 3 over the course of his relatively short tenancy so far.
Mr Turner stated that he expected better communication from the landlord about what was being done about his problems with the tenants from unit 3. He stated that following the incident with the tenant in the ceiling he heard nothing from the landlord for three days, and that for four or five incidents he never received a response.
Mr Turner stated that he would like to be reimbursed for the costs he necessarily incurred in the course of protecting his privacy and the protection of his property from the tenants at unit 3. This included the CCTV camera, opaque film to cover his windows, and locks for his letterbox.
Mr Turner stated he was seeking a reduced rental because he didn’t feel he was able to use the common area yard, he didn’t feel safe going outside and he didn’t feel he could safely leave his partner alone in the premises, or leave the premises altogether without there being risk of further offences against his partner or their property. In effect Mr Turner was experiencing a significant incursion on the reasonable amenity of the tenancy.
For the landlord Mr Hickey accepted that he was also the property manager for unit 3, but that he had only begun managing the tenancies in June 2023 and he hadn’t been involved in selecting the tenants. He pointed out that although he didn’t question Mr Turner’s veracity, the security camera that Mr Turner had installed could not see people coming and going from unit 3.
Mr Hickey stated that he had responded to every notification that Mr Turner sent and that when he felt he had sufficient cause, he had served several 14-day breach notices on the tenant at unit 3. In his view, he had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants caused any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of Mr Turner in the use of the premises.
Mr Hickey stated that he believed at least one of the incidents was retaliatory in nature against Mr Turner. Discussion and decision
These incidents were not limited to nuisance. The ongoing nature of the incidents some of which were serious, formed a pattern which amounted to harassment.
Harassment is behaviour directed against a specific person and includes doing a specified act to the other person on at least 2 separate occasions within a period of 12 months, see the Harassment Act 1997, section 3.
Harassment also means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Most of the 25 events that Mr Turner reported involved specified acts as defined in section 4 of the Harassment Act 1997.
The landlord was aware of the nature of the breaches of the tenant and their associates from unit 3. The landlord had excellent information coming from Mr Turner in the form of written notifications supported by CCTV footage. The landlord was also aware of police involvement.
Because of the frequency and seriousness of the incidents, all of which involved the tenants and/or their associates from unit 3 and Mr Turner as the victim, and for which there was no suggestion that Mr Turner had provoked or retaliated in anyway, I find there was an increased responsibility to address the risks that the tenant and their associates at unit 3 were posing to Mr Turner’s and Ms Heke’s peace, comfort and privacy in relation to their tenancy, than may usually be the case.
I find the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants caused or permitted any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
Locks for the letterbox, opaque film for windows and CCTV cameras are all standard security devices that the landlord could have employed. CCTV cameras installed and monitored by the landlord rather than the tenant, may have served to deter the offensive behaviour of the tenants at unit 3 being directed at Mr Turner. Better communication with Mr Turner may have led to solutions being implemented at an earlier stage.
Harassment against one tenant by another is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages are available on an application to the Tribunal by the landlord, see section 40(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This was also a course of action available to the landlord.
The compensation ordered is as reimbursement for a security camera ($200.00), opaque film for the glass, ($30.00), locks for letterbox, ($20.00), black out curtains ($60.00), and loss of amenity calculated at $25.00 per week for 25 weeks from the beginning of June 2023 until the date of the hearing.
Because Felino Alessandro Turner, Waikahu Te Utaiho Heke has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639410 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 2B Home Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639410 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 2B Home Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

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