What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781077?

The tribunal order states: Vivek Kedia and Praveer Kumar must pay Jade Rental Properties Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4781077?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Dated 02/02/2024: $3,219.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781077?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10296202-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781077?

The tribunal order states: Vivek Kedia and Praveer Kumar must pay Jade Rental Properties Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4781077?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Dated 02/02/2024: $3,219.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781077?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10296202-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

84A Salamanca Road, Kelburn, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4781077 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4781077 — net $1,707.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order dated 02/02/2024	$3,219.39	Previous order dated 02/02/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,707.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,707.83

Order

Vivek Kedia and Praveer Kumar must pay Jade Rental Properties Limited $1,707.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,532.00 (5910811-008) to Jade Rental Properties Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord and Mr Kedia attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager. Mr Kumar did not want to attend and I agreed that his attendance was not required.
I made decisions on the landlord’s claim on 2 February 2024 in the total amount of $3219.39. The February order sets out the reasons for the decisions made. The matter was adjourned to hear the tenants’ cross application.
The tenants’ application includes claims for retaliatory notice, breach of quiet enjoyment, discrimination, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and compensation.

Was there a retaliatory notice?

The Tribunal can find that the landlord has given a retaliatory notice if tenant proves the landlord was motivated to give a notice because the tenant exercised a right. This claim is dismissed because the landlord never gave the tenants a notice to end the tenancy. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.
The tenants’ submission is that there was constant harassment by the landlord, even after the tenancy. This is the tenants’ claim to prove.
I cannot make any orders about events after the end of the tenancy because my jurisdiction is to resolve disputes between landlords and tenant while there is a tenancy.
Mr Kedia submitted that he and the property manager got off to a bad start and this affected all communication between them after that. Mr Kedia recorded a telephone conversation on 4 August 2023 without the landlord’s consent. The landlord objected to this being allowed as evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law - see section 97(4) RTA. In He v Bai (DC Waitakere, CIV-2013-090-455, 23 October 2013) the District Court held that a covert recording was relevant and admissible. The Court said: [20] The right of silence preserved by s 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies to protect a person accused of criminal conduct from self incriminating [sic]. Even in criminal cases Courts have been willing to admit covertly recorded statements if voluntarily given. Accordingly there is no blanket ban even in that jurisdiction especially in those cases where the statements are not made to a person in authority such as a police officer ... [21] Accordingly the evidence of the recording itself was in my view directly relevant for a point in issue in the case and did not require the consent or even the knowledge of Ms Bai as a pre-condition to its admissibility. ...
The overriding principle is one of fairness to both parties. Where a recording of a conversation is made without the knowledge of the other party, this is a factor which can be considered in determining the weight given to the evidence. I considered the telephone conversation could be relevant to the claim for harassment and so it was allowed.
As it turned out, Mr Kedia’s recording was of poor quality. I could not hear anything in the audible part of the recording that could constitute harassment.
Mr Kedia said there was harassment because the landlord did not reply to his emails sent on 13 November 2023 asking for confirmation about how much rent was owing. The landlord replied that this was unnecessary because there was a Tenancy Tribunal order dated 10 November 2023 ending the tenancy and setting out the money owed. These emails were sent in the morning. I have looked at the previous application and the rehearing was not granted until the afternoon. I find there was no harassment by the landlord here because it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the tenant would be leaving, and that the rent arrears had been finalised.
On 23 November, after a stay was granted, Mr Kedia asked MSD for assistance to pay the money owed. There is an email from a customer services representative from MSD which states MSD required rent details from the property manager and she refused to supply these. The email states the property manager made threats. The tenant said this was also harassment. The property manager replied that there was a Tribunal order setting out the debt and she was frustrated during the call with MSD. I am not persuaded the email from MSD proves the landlord harassed the tenants, and I find the explanation about the Tribunal order to be reasonable.
The tenants submitted that the landlord should have taken other steps rather than apply to the Tribunal for rent arrears and compensation after the end of the tenancy. Given that I have made orders against the tenants for exactly that, the landlord’s application seems completely reasonable to me. I do not find there was harassment here.
Mr Kedia submitted that the way he was treated at an inspection on 13 November was shocking. He played a recording he made without the landlord’s knowledge. I accepted the recording as evidence because it was likely to be relevant to the claim. The landlord said she only inspected because she thought the tenancy had ended after the order terminating the tenancy made on 10 November. She did not know about the application for a stay. She agreed she was frustrated and more heated than normal and said the recording did not reflect how she usually does inspections. I have carefully considered the submissions and the 9 minute recording. I find it was reasonable for the landlord to collect the Mr Kumar’s keys. I also find there was no harassment by the landlord evident in the recording.
The tenants have not proved there was any harassment. This claim is dismissed.

Was there discrimination?

The tenants said there was discrimination by the landlord during the tenancy. The tenant has not provided me with any evidence supporting this claim and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because the tenants are not the most successful party.
The bond is refunded to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4781077 — net $1,707.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order dated 02/02/2024	$3,219.39	Previous order dated 02/02/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,707.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,707.83

Order

Vivek Kedia and Praveer Kumar must pay Jade Rental Properties Limited $1,707.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,532.00 (5910811-008) to Jade Rental Properties Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord and Mr Kedia attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager. Mr Kumar did not want to attend and I agreed that his attendance was not required.
I made decisions on the landlord’s claim on 2 February 2024 in the total amount of $3219.39. The February order sets out the reasons for the decisions made. The matter was adjourned to hear the tenants’ cross application.
The tenants’ application includes claims for retaliatory notice, breach of quiet enjoyment, discrimination, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and compensation.

Was there a retaliatory notice?

The Tribunal can find that the landlord has given a retaliatory notice if tenant proves the landlord was motivated to give a notice because the tenant exercised a right. This claim is dismissed because the landlord never gave the tenants a notice to end the tenancy. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.
The tenants’ submission is that there was constant harassment by the landlord, even after the tenancy. This is the tenants’ claim to prove.
I cannot make any orders about events after the end of the tenancy because my jurisdiction is to resolve disputes between landlords and tenant while there is a tenancy.
Mr Kedia submitted that he and the property manager got off to a bad start and this affected all communication between them after that. Mr Kedia recorded a telephone conversation on 4 August 2023 without the landlord’s consent. The landlord objected to this being allowed as evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law - see section 97(4) RTA. In He v Bai (DC Waitakere, CIV-2013-090-455, 23 October 2013) the District Court held that a covert recording was relevant and admissible. The Court said: [20] The right of silence preserved by s 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies to protect a person accused of criminal conduct from self incriminating [sic]. Even in criminal cases Courts have been willing to admit covertly recorded statements if voluntarily given. Accordingly there is no blanket ban even in that jurisdiction especially in those cases where the statements are not made to a person in authority such as a police officer ... [21] Accordingly the evidence of the recording itself was in my view directly relevant for a point in issue in the case and did not require the consent or even the knowledge of Ms Bai as a pre-condition to its admissibility. ...
The overriding principle is one of fairness to both parties. Where a recording of a conversation is made without the knowledge of the other party, this is a factor which can be considered in determining the weight given to the evidence. I considered the telephone conversation could be relevant to the claim for harassment and so it was allowed.
As it turned out, Mr Kedia’s recording was of poor quality. I could not hear anything in the audible part of the recording that could constitute harassment.
Mr Kedia said there was harassment because the landlord did not reply to his emails sent on 13 November 2023 asking for confirmation about how much rent was owing. The landlord replied that this was unnecessary because there was a Tenancy Tribunal order dated 10 November 2023 ending the tenancy and setting out the money owed. These emails were sent in the morning. I have looked at the previous application and the rehearing was not granted until the afternoon. I find there was no harassment by the landlord here because it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the tenant would be leaving, and that the rent arrears had been finalised.
On 23 November, after a stay was granted, Mr Kedia asked MSD for assistance to pay the money owed. There is an email from a customer services representative from MSD which states MSD required rent details from the property manager and she refused to supply these. The email states the property manager made threats. The tenant said this was also harassment. The property manager replied that there was a Tribunal order setting out the debt and she was frustrated during the call with MSD. I am not persuaded the email from MSD proves the landlord harassed the tenants, and I find the explanation about the Tribunal order to be reasonable.
The tenants submitted that the landlord should have taken other steps rather than apply to the Tribunal for rent arrears and compensation after the end of the tenancy. Given that I have made orders against the tenants for exactly that, the landlord’s application seems completely reasonable to me. I do not find there was harassment here.
Mr Kedia submitted that the way he was treated at an inspection on 13 November was shocking. He played a recording he made without the landlord’s knowledge. I accepted the recording as evidence because it was likely to be relevant to the claim. The landlord said she only inspected because she thought the tenancy had ended after the order terminating the tenancy made on 10 November. She did not know about the application for a stay. She agreed she was frustrated and more heated than normal and said the recording did not reflect how she usually does inspections. I have carefully considered the submissions and the 9 minute recording. I find it was reasonable for the landlord to collect the Mr Kumar’s keys. I also find there was no harassment by the landlord evident in the recording.
The tenants have not proved there was any harassment. This claim is dismissed.

Was there discrimination?

The tenants said there was discrimination by the landlord during the tenancy. The tenant has not provided me with any evidence supporting this claim and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because the tenants are not the most successful party.
The bond is refunded to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781077 — Tenancy dispute at 84A Salamanca Road, Kelburn, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781077 — Tenancy dispute at 84A Salamanca Road, Kelburn, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a retaliatory notice?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Was there discrimination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a retaliatory notice?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Was there discrimination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions