What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4656418?

The tribunal order states: Gisselle McLaughlin James must pay AA Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4656418?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $150.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656418?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656418?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9670807-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4656418?

The tribunal order states: Gisselle McLaughlin James must pay AA Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4656418?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $150.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656418?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656418?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9670807-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Cosgrave Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656418 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656418 — net $411.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to windows	$241.50	Repairs to windows
Reinstatement of smoke alarm	$150.01	Reinstatement of smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$411.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$411.95

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656418 — net $411.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to windows	$241.50	Repairs to windows
Reinstatement of smoke alarm	$150.01	Reinstatement of smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$411.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$411.95

Order

Gisselle McLaughlin James must pay AA Property Management Limited $411.95 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 14 November 2023. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord was given permission to provide further information after the hearing. Background
The tenant has a fixed-term tenancy from 21 April 2023 to 20 April 2024. The tenancy agreement uses the Tenancy Services standard form.
The landlord has applied for termination and provided a large quantity of documentation. The grounds for termination are, in summary: • Aggressive and disrespectful behaviour by the tenant, combined with baseless accusations against the landlord and agents providing maintenance services. • Unfounded claims by the tenant of property-related problems such as a toilet blockage and electrical issues; false statements about break-ins and vandalism; groundless complaints to the Tenancy Services compliance team; and a defamatory social media post. • Complaints from neighbours about anti-social behaviour by the tenant. • Deliberate damage to the property by the tenant.
The landlord says the tenant’s actions have made the situation untenable and she believes the continuance of the tenancy poses a risk to her health and safety and of further damage to the property. Anti-social behaviour
The landlord served notices pursuant to section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) (termination for anti-social behaviour) on 28 June 2023, 15 September 2023, 3 November 2023, and 9 November 2023. However, this provision only applies to periodic tenancies. The Tribunal cannot terminate this tenancy, being for a fixed term, under section 55A.
The Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, the landlord or an agent of the landlord. This would include tradespersons engaged by the landlord to perform maintenance (section 55(1)(c) of the Act).
There is evidence from a tradesperson that he was called to the property on 22 April 2023 due to a leak in the shower and laundry area. He found that there was no shower leak. Incorrect installation of the washing machine had caused the issue in the laundry. The tradesperson returned on 24 April 2023 due to a claimed shower leak but was unable to find anything. He described the tenant’s demeanour as highly confrontational with angry outbursts and questioning of his professional abilities.
The tradesperson returned to the property on 27 April 2023 to address a shower blockage caused by hair and grease. The tradesperson was uncomfortable that the tenant left her young child alone while he worked. On 30 April 2023 the tradesperson was called to address drain and toilet blockages and a shower leak. The tenant questioned his identity and demanded proof of his qualifications, accusing him of being unqualified and fraudulent. There were accusations made about baby wipes blocking the drainage. The tradesperson is no longer willing to attend the property and says the atmosphere was intimidating and threatening.
There is evidence from another tradesperson that the tenant had removed a smoke alarm, and he was called to reinstate it. There was also a reported power outage to a back room in May 2023. The tradesperson found that the main switch had been turned off by the tenant. The tradesman says he attended 7-8 calls for various minor issues and urgent service requests were often denied access, or no one was present at the property when he tried to schedule a time to attend.
The tradesperson said he completed a job relating to the fuse box and later learned the tenant alleged he did not attend or fix the issue. He said the tenant also questioned a drain unblocking invoice, accusing him of being an unqualified and fraudulent service provider. This tradesperson is also no longer willing to attend at the property, citing safety concerns.
There is an email from the tenant on 28 June 2023 stating that no one had come to perform the work and questioning the qualifications of the landlord’s tradespeople. The tenant also alleged there was an ongoing issue with faulty wiring in the house. The large number of emails from the tenant on 28 June 2023 appear to have been provoked by the landlord requesting that the tenant pay the costs of tradesperson call outs, because the issues arose from the tenant’s actions.
The evidence suggests the tenant can have an intimidating manner and several tradespeople have been very concerned about their safety and reputation. However, there is no clear evidence that she has assaulted or threatened to assault anyone. The tradespersons felt intimidated and there was fear of escalation from verbal to physical assault, but this has not been expressly related to any specific statement, physical act, or gesture by the tenant. Therefore, I find it is not open to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the Act. Unfounded requests for repairs
The landlord says the tenant has made claims about maintenance issues, particularly relating to the plumbing, that are unfounded.
A plumber attended the premises on 30 April 2023. The invoice for this visit stated that the tenant was flushing baby wipes down the toilet, and this had caused the blockage.
Plumbers also attended in respect of a blocked toilet/wastewater drain on 8 May, 15 May, 3 July, and 11 August 2023. The invoice from the first visit recorded that the cause of the blockage was unclear. It was identified at the second visit that there was a displaced pipe in the wastewater drain and it was recommended that this pipe be exposed for repair or replacement. The final visits reported that the cause of the blockage was unclear. No wet wipes in the drain were identified during these visits and the plumber advised that the drain would likely block again unless the displaced pipe was repaired or replaced.
There is evidence indicating that extensive work may be required to investigate the sewage issue, including exposing the drain connected to the public drainage and Council/Watercare consent. The property would need to be vacant for 3-6 months and new plumbing installed.
I accept that the tenant has made unfounded accusations about electrical and plumbing work not being performed. However, there would seem to be a genuine issue about the adequacy of the wastewater drainage. There is an email from the tenant on 28 June 2023 stating that sewage would come up the shower drain, and another on 11 August 2023 stating that sewage had come up the drains. The tenant denied that baby wipes had caused the blockage. The Tribunal is unable to establish that the tenant is responsible for the repeated blocking of the drain, or that the complaints about blockages lack foundation.
The tenant has an obligation to notify the landlord of the need for any repairs (section 40(1)(d) of the Act) and it can be readily implied that the tenant must do so in good faith, acting honestly, and not intentionally cause the landlord to unnecessarily incur repair or investigation costs when repairs are not in fact required. In my view, the available evidence does not establish that the tenant has falsely raised maintenance requests. Complaints to Tenancy Services
As to the complaints to Tenancy Services, there is little direct evidence. It is difficult to determine what exactly the tenant complained about, or what Tenancy Services’ findings were.
There are two letters from Tenancy Services, both dated 31 October 2023 and addressed to the landlord. The first states that the compliance team had completed an investigation of concerns raised about the property. The compliance team had decided not to take any further action. The second letter referred to a warning letter issued to the landlord. Based on evidence received from the landlord, it had been shown the warning letter was incorrect and the letter was withdrawn. The correspondence does not say what concerns had been raised, what the warning letter was about, or why it was incorrect.
The windows were inspected on 11 October 2023 by a maintenance company. They reported that the tenant confirmed two windows had been screwed shut by a previous contractor for security reasons. The windows were observed to be secure and undamaged, with no sign of forced entry. The landlord says the tenant had the windows screwed shut so she could complain to Tenancy Services, but this cannot be ascertained. The contents of the social media post and an email from the tenant to MBIE on 28 June 2023 suggest the tenant complained that the property did not meet the healthy homes’ standards despite there being a healthy homes compliance statement. Whether such a claim had any justification cannot be determined.
I am unable to find that the tenant knowingly made false complaints to the Tenancy Services compliance team, or manufactured situations she could then complain about. Even if this could be proven, it might provide the landlord with remedies outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (for example, under the Harassment Act 1997, in defamation or for malicious prosecution) but it is less clear how this would provide grounds for termination under the Act. Complaints from neighbours
There is reference in the landlord’s submissions to concern from neighbours about the tenant’s behaviour.
There is no evidence supporting these alleged concerns, which might have supported termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 40(2)(c) of the Act (tenant’s harassment of neighbour). Damage to the property
There is evidence from a tradesperson that curses were written on the rear ranch slider and a window in August 2023. The landlord says the tenant falsely blamed the damage on a break-in. The writing is clearly visible in the photographs and includes foul language. I consider it likely the tenant is responsible. However, there is no evidence showing how much it cost to remove the writing.
The landlord said there was damage to a gutter. It was not specifically alleged that the tenant caused the damage. Part of the guttering around the property is missing in the photographs. There is an email from the tenant dated 28 June 2023 where she asks: “And where is all the spouting for the house?” I acknowledge that there were roof repairs including gutter and flashing installation in March 2023, prior to the tenancy. However, I consider it is unclear whether the tenant subsequently removed part of the guttering or what the cost of repair might be.
The Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises (section 55(1)(b) of the Act). The word “substantial” can mean “considerable”, “material”, “sizeable” or “significant”. Without evidence of the cost of repair, it is difficult to find that the writing on the windows or the damage to the guttering amounts to substantial damage. There is nothing suggesting the tenant has threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises. Conclusion on termination
The landlord is concerned there may be significant maintenance issues relating to the wastewater drains, which cannot be rectified while the tenant remains in occupation. The ability to give notice to terminate the tenancy where extensive repairs are to be carried out applies only to periodic tenancies (section 51(2)(f)). If it turns out that extensive repairs are required and it is not practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is performed, section 66 of the Act (reduction of fixed term tenancy) may be available to the landlord.
The landlord is also concerned for her safety. Some of the tenant’s reported behaviour is undoubtedly challenging and probably anti-social as defined in section 55A(7) of the Act. The tenant frequently accuses the landlord of dishonest business practices in her messages and did so publicly in a social media post; the general tone of many of the emails is quite hostile.
Some of the antagonism seems to stem from the tenant’s belief that she was being charged for plumbing and electrical costs which were the landlord’s responsibility. Other statements have no apparent factual basis. On 10 November 2023, for example, the tenant accused the landlord of sending her death threats in the mail and said she had reported this to the Police. The tenant has intimidated several tradespersons to the point where they will not attend the premises.
The difficulty is that the provision enabling the Tribunal to terminate for anti- social behaviour does not apply to fixed term tenancies. The only other relevant provision, section 40(2)(c) of the Act, is narrowly focussed on interference with the quiet enjoyment of the landlord’s other tenants or “any other person residing in the neighbourhood” (the landlord does not live in the same suburb). There are no equivalent provisions to those which protect tenants from harassment in favour of landlords who deal with aggressive tenants (section 38 of the Act). A tenant does not have a corresponding duty in residential tenancy law not to harass a landlord. If they did, then this might be a case where the duty would apply.
The tenant has likely refused entry to tradespeople in breach of section 48 of the Act and has damaged the windows of the property. The smoke alarm was removed and this was a breach of section 40(2)(ab) of the Act. However, I am not satisfied that these breaches, looked at objectively, justify termination of the tenancy but that may change if breaches continue. Compensation
The landlord claimed reimbursement of various maintenance invoices and administration fees for attending the hearing and dealing with Tenancy Services, totalling $2,003.26.
In my view, the landlord cannot recover plumbing and electrical charges where the tenant inadvertently caused the need for attendance, for example, turning the sleepout switch off so that it had to be reset (the electrician’s invoice noted that the switch was wrongly labelled).
The cost of attending Tribunal hearings is not recoverable (section 102 of the Act). The administration costs of dealing with Tenancy Services are not recoverable because they were not caused by a breach of the Act.
I award the cost of removing the screws from the windows. The tenant had no authority to alter the premises in this way without the landlord’s consent ($241.50). I also award the cost of reinstating the smoke alarm ($150.01). The tenant had no authority to remove this and breached the Act by doing so. Filing fee
The landlord has had some success. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656418 — Property damage at 17 Cosgrave Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656418 — Property damage at 17 Cosgrave Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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