What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4707829?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application has been withdrawn.

How much money was awarded in case 4707829?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707829?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9924250-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4707829?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application has been withdrawn.

How much money was awarded in case 4707829?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707829?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9924250-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

138A Epuni Street, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4707829 — Cleanliness

Order

The landlord’s application has been withdrawn.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord withdrew Application 4707829 during the hearing.
In her Application 4732309 Melanie has claimed that another of the landlord’s tenants (Tenant A) interfered with her peace comfort and privacy when she was a resident at 138A Epuni Street, Epuni. Her application is that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the tenant did not interfere with her peace comfort and privacy, as is required by section 45(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Melanie’s application relates to events two years ago. Her tenancy began in November 2013 and ended in July 2022. Tenant A began a tenancy at 138B Epuni Street on 21 June 2021.
There can be an evidential difficulty with claims such as this when they are not made at the time of the events. The tenant has provided handwritten notes setting out what she recalls about what happened and has also provided texts to support her claim that she was sent abusive messages by Tenant A in January 2022.
Melanie contacted the landlord on 14 April 2022 regarding the text message. The landlord sent a breach notice to Tenant A on 28 April 2022. I am unaware of any further texts of this nature being sent to Melanie by after the landlord’s breach notice.
Melanie that she said she contacted the landlord many other times about the actions of Tenant A. The landlord’s representative stated that she had listened to five of the twenty recordings of Melanie’s complaints. She said that the difficulty with Melanie’s phone complaints about the neighbour was that calls were terminated because Melanie because so abusive to call centre staff. This is consistent with the landlord receiving complaints from private neighbours about Melanie’s disruptive behaviour in the neighbourhood on the street at night. The landlord also received a complaint from Tenant A about Melanie. Melanie said that her behaviour in the neighbourhood was in response to Tenant A’s behaviour.
The landlord stated that the NZ Police was involved regarding Melanie’s complaint about Tenant A but decided that they could not take any action against Tenant A. There is a difficulty for Melanie proving her claim when there is reason to believe that her behaviour could have contributed to the problems she was having.
The landlord did take reasonable steps by offering Melanie a different place to live. Melanie checked out the offer of different accommodation and agreed to move. That was in July 2022. Melanie did not make an application to the Tribunal about 138A Epuni Street until about 18 months after that. The application was made in response to the landlord’s application for compensation for damage and cleaning when the tenancy ended. Melanie’s acceptance of relocation and not making an application about what happened in 2022 points to her being satisfied with the landlord’s actions regarding what was happening at 138A Epuni Street and that she would not have made an application for $100,000.00 compensation if the landlord had not applied for compensation from her for damages to the property at 138 Epuni Street.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. She must prove that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord’s other tenant did not interfere with her peace, comfort and privacy.
I have no doubt that the tenant experienced a difficult time with Tenant A. The text dated January 2022 is totally unacceptable. However the evidence shows that the landlord did act, did assist to resolve the situation and that the problem the tenant experienced was likely to be more difficult to resolve because of her own behaviour both with the landlord and in the neighbourhood. The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps regarding Meanie and Tenant A. For these reasons the claim for compensation is dismissed.
Melanie has also applied for exemplary damages. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed because it was not applied for within 12 months of the cause of action. The cause of action was well over 12 months ago.

Order

The landlord’s application has been withdrawn.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord withdrew Application 4707829 during the hearing.
In her Application 4732309 Melanie has claimed that another of the landlord’s tenants (Tenant A) interfered with her peace comfort and privacy when she was a resident at 138A Epuni Street, Epuni. Her application is that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the tenant did not interfere with her peace comfort and privacy, as is required by section 45(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Melanie’s application relates to events two years ago. Her tenancy began in November 2013 and ended in July 2022. Tenant A began a tenancy at 138B Epuni Street on 21 June 2021.
There can be an evidential difficulty with claims such as this when they are not made at the time of the events. The tenant has provided handwritten notes setting out what she recalls about what happened and has also provided texts to support her claim that she was sent abusive messages by Tenant A in January 2022.
Melanie contacted the landlord on 14 April 2022 regarding the text message. The landlord sent a breach notice to Tenant A on 28 April 2022. I am unaware of any further texts of this nature being sent to Melanie by after the landlord’s breach notice.
Melanie that she said she contacted the landlord many other times about the actions of Tenant A. The landlord’s representative stated that she had listened to five of the twenty recordings of Melanie’s complaints. She said that the difficulty with Melanie’s phone complaints about the neighbour was that calls were terminated because Melanie because so abusive to call centre staff. This is consistent with the landlord receiving complaints from private neighbours about Melanie’s disruptive behaviour in the neighbourhood on the street at night. The landlord also received a complaint from Tenant A about Melanie. Melanie said that her behaviour in the neighbourhood was in response to Tenant A’s behaviour.
The landlord stated that the NZ Police was involved regarding Melanie’s complaint about Tenant A but decided that they could not take any action against Tenant A. There is a difficulty for Melanie proving her claim when there is reason to believe that her behaviour could have contributed to the problems she was having.
The landlord did take reasonable steps by offering Melanie a different place to live. Melanie checked out the offer of different accommodation and agreed to move. That was in July 2022. Melanie did not make an application to the Tribunal about 138A Epuni Street until about 18 months after that. The application was made in response to the landlord’s application for compensation for damage and cleaning when the tenancy ended. Melanie’s acceptance of relocation and not making an application about what happened in 2022 points to her being satisfied with the landlord’s actions regarding what was happening at 138A Epuni Street and that she would not have made an application for $100,000.00 compensation if the landlord had not applied for compensation from her for damages to the property at 138 Epuni Street.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. She must prove that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord’s other tenant did not interfere with her peace, comfort and privacy.
I have no doubt that the tenant experienced a difficult time with Tenant A. The text dated January 2022 is totally unacceptable. However the evidence shows that the landlord did act, did assist to resolve the situation and that the problem the tenant experienced was likely to be more difficult to resolve because of her own behaviour both with the landlord and in the neighbourhood. The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps regarding Meanie and Tenant A. For these reasons the claim for compensation is dismissed.
Melanie has also applied for exemplary damages. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed because it was not applied for within 12 months of the cause of action. The cause of action was well over 12 months ago.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707829 — Cleanliness at 138A Epuni Street, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707829 — Cleanliness at 138A Epuni Street, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions