What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724813?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this Order.

How much money was awarded in case 4724813?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724813?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9851543-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724813?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this Order.

How much money was awarded in case 4724813?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724813?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9851543-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 101, 2E Pratt Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4724813 — Harassment

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this Order.
At the time of this Tenancy Tribunal application, the property at 2E Pratt Street, Freemans Bay was operating as a boarding house. Because of this, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to this dispute.
The applicant’s claim of retaliatory notice is dismissed.
The applicant’s claim of breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The applicant’s claim of discrimination is dismissed.
The applicant’s claim of unlawful entry is dismissed.
The applicant’s claim for reimbursement of outgoings is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Jurisdiction
Mr Jade Wood, for Cassidy Enterprises Limited trading as Roomrenter, submitted to the Tribunal that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute because the tenant is Mr Wood’s flatmate and not a tenant living in a boarding house, as the tenant claims.
A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, see below. 66BInterpretation for this Part In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,— boarding house means residential premises— (a)containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b)occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time
Mr Wood is the sole director of a business called Cassidy Enterprises Limited which is in the business of renting residential premises. Mr Wood stated he also operates other residential premises beside this one at 5E Pratt Street, Freeman’s Bay.
Mr Wood has had a tenancy at the said property since 2008 in which he personally is the tenant. He sublets the five other bedrooms in the property to other people who he says are his flatmates. Mr Wood provides his tenants with a Residential Tenancy Agreement on which the landlord is recorded as Cassidy Enterprises Limited.
The renting of the property at 5E Pratt Street, Freemans Bay by Mr Wood, is a commercial enterprise for Mr Wood and his company Cassidy Enterprises Limited.
To suggest that Mr Wood’s status as head tenant is of such a quality that it need not be counted as a tenancy, in my view is a strained interpretation that potentially serves to evade the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and is contrary to sections 11 and 137 of the Act, which set out the general rule of inclusion of the Act, and prohibited transactions respectively, and which are included below. 11Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions (1)Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— (a)the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b)the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. 137Prohibited transactions (1)No person shall— (a)enter into any transaction, or make any contract or arrangement, purporting to do, whether presently or at some future time or upon the happening of any event or contingency, anything that contravenes or will contravene any of the provisions of this Act; or (b)enter into any transaction or make any contract or arrangement, whether orally or in writing, or do anything, for the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act. (2)Requiring any person to enter into any transaction, or to make any contract or arrangement, in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act. (3)Subject to subsection (4), any provision of any transaction, contract, or arrangement entered into in contravention of subsection (1) that would have the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be of no effect.
A simple approach shows there are six tenancies for six rooms at 5E Pratt Street, Freemans Bay, which meets the plain wording of section 66B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
An alternative approach would find that Mr Wood, who lives, and is the director of the company that sublets five rooms, is the sixth tenant (or first of six tenants) of Cassidy Enterprises Ltd, at 5E Pratt Street, Freemans Bay. In effect, the one tenancy that operates between Mr Wood and his landlord, is divided into six tenancies, and all six tenancies are managed by either Mr Wood or Cassidy Enterprises Limited, of whom Mr Wood is the sole director.
In either case I am satisfied that there are six tenancies at the property and as such it is correctly described as a boarding house. Therefore the Residential Tenancies At 1986 applies. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claims the termination notice given to him was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove on the balance of probabilities that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant provided the Tribunal with a letter from Firearms Safety Authority dated 22 August 2023 requesting information about his health. He stated that this indicated the landlord had provided information to the Firearms Safety Authority which they were now responding to. The tenant confronted the landlord with his suspicions about this and claims that the termination notice given two weeks later was the landlord retaliating to being confronted.
The landlord denied providing any of the tenant’s private information to the Firearms Safety Authority.
The landlord referred to an incident in which an ambulance had been called to the boarding house when the tenant had been drunk, distressed and making extreme statements. He suggested this was may have been how a government agency had gathered information about the tenant’s health.
The tenant has not provided any evidence that proves the landlord provided information to the Firearms Safety Authority. Nor has the tenant provided any information that links his confronting the landlord to the notice of termination.
The claim is not proved.
The tenant claims that the landlord discriminated against him.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant referred to an incident on 2 January 2023 when the landlord, his wife and a friend were playing a board game just outside the tenant’s bedroom door. The tenant claims he heard the landlord’s wife say: “Oh he’s gay.”
The landlord’s wife gave evidence and stated that she believes the tenant is mistaken in thinking she made that statement. She recalls the evening playing the board game, she said she has many gay friends and she regularly socialised with the tenant during his tenancy. She stated she has no adverse opinions of the tenant based on his sexuality. She stated it was long after this event that her relationship with the tenant soured.
The landlord pointed out, that he is not responsible for what his wife says.
I am not persuaded the tenant’s wife made the statement, and if she did, I am not persuaded that it is a breach of section 12(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The claim is not proved.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 66G(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded. See section 66G(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant referred to the abovementioned incident on 2 January 2023 when the landlord, his wife and friend were playing board games outside his bedroom at
30 pm, thirty minutes after the house rules state that there was to be no noise from tenants. The tenant made no attempt to ask the board game players to quieten down.
The tenant referred to a second incident, on 28 October 2023 when the landlord’s wife was washing dishes and she allegedly pulled a face at the tenant who was having a coffee at the dining room table. Both people were in the common area.
On a third occasion in August 2022, the tenant was washing dishes in the kitchen when he saw the landlord’s wife enter his bedroom where two other friends already were. The tenant continued to wash the dishes for a further five to seven minutes.
The landlord again stated that his wife is not a director or an employee of Cassidy Enterprises Limited, and as such is not the landlord. I agree with the landlord’s submission on this point.
I am not persuaded that any of these incidents amount to a breach by the landlord of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The claim is not proved.
The tenant also claims that the landlord’s wife entering his room amounts to an unlawful entry.
A landlord must not enter the tenant’s room during the tenancy except with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, for providing services in the room, or after giving the required notice. See section 66R Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation or entering with the use of threat or force are unlawful acts for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded. See section 66T(1)(a) and (b), and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s wife said she only entered the tenant’s bedroom on one occasion when he was showing her how beautiful his room was. She doesn’t recall the incident from August 2022 the tenant talked about.
The landlord again pointed out that his wife is not the landlord of the property, and as stated above, I agree with this position.
This claim is not proven.
The tenant is seeking reimbursement of $34.94 which was incurred for power expenses. Section 66E (4)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that landlords are not responsible for outgoings if the supply is separately metred for that room.
Both parties agreed that the power in the tenant’s room was separately metred by way of an application called Shelly. I therefore decline to order reimbursement for this expense. Name suppression
At the conclusion of the hearing, both the landlord and the tenant sought name suppression pursuant to The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 95A which requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was wholly or substantially successful in their claim, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is otherwise justified.
The applicant was successful in his submission that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this dispute, but unsuccessful in all his substantive claims. As such I find that he has not been substantially successful in his claim and for this reason I decline to order name suppression.
The landlord was successful in defending all of the substantive claims made against him. However the landlord’s claim that the Tenancy Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute is a view I rejected.
Information regarding the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal is important information that prospective tenants for a specific property should be able to access, particularly when jurisdiction regarding a particular address has been brought into question. Without the information being easily available, the question of which agency should be engaged in the case of a dispute may not be clear, and this may become a bar to a tenant accessing justice in a dispute.
In my view it is in the public interest that information regarding this tenancy and claim is not suppressed.
The landlord’s application for suppression of details regarding the tenancy is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724813 — Harassment at Room 101, 2E Pratt Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724813 — Harassment at Room 101, 2E Pratt Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions