What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4801522?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4801522?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4801522?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4801522?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10642559-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4801522?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4801522?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4801522?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4801522?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10642559-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 15 Central Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4801522 — Mould & damp

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 28 April 2023 as a one-year fixed term tenancy. It continued as a periodic tenancy at the expiry of the fixed term.
Ms Clifton lives at the property with her granddaughter and her granddaughter’s partner. I will refer to the granddaughter’s partner as “T” in this decision.
The landlord’s application seeks termination on the grounds of anti-social behaviour / interference with the peace comfort and privacy of neighbours. The allegations mostly relate to domestic incidents between Ms Clifton’s granddaughter and T, and incidents relating to T’s friends visiting the property.
The first hearing took place by phone on 1 March 2024, before Adjudicator Baker.
Adjudicator Baker made an order: a. Dismissing the landlord’s claim for termination under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (termination on the basis of anti-social behaviour). b. Adjourning the hearing. c. Noting that the landlord’s alternative claim for termination under section 56 RTA (breach) remains open for determination. d. Noting that the tenant had filed a cross application shortly before the 1 March hearing.
The applications were heard before me in Whangarei on 17 July 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Clifton’s daughter, Ms Toki, assisted her at the hearing. Ms Baker represented the landlord. Ms Neunzerling (the owner of a neighbouring unit) attended as a witness. Landlord application - termination
Tenants have a duty to not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of any other person in the neighbourhood 1 .
The Tenancy Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if: a. A tenant breaches a duty that they owe under the RTA or the terms of the tenancy agreement; and b. In the case of a breach that is capable of being remedied, the landlord has given the tenant a notice describing the breach and giving the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach; and c. The breach was not remedied within the notice period; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination.
Ms Baker provided a timeline of incidents at the property. The timeline details multiple incidents in September, October, and November 2023, and in January 2024.
Most of the incidents relate to domestic arguments, driveway issues, and the behaviour of T and his friends.
The most serious incident happened on 30 January 2024. Several of T’s friends were visiting the property. It seems that an ex-partner of one of those friends came to the property uninvited, and there was an angry confrontation. The ex-partner then took the keys from a vehicle that was parked in the 1 Section 40(2)(c) RTA driveway and left with them, immobilising the vehicle in the driveway for several hours. This, together with the shouting and subsequent police attendance, caused inconvenience and disturbance for Ms Clifton’s neighbours.
Most of these incidents were not disputed by Ms Clifton. Ms Toki said that after the hearing in early March, the family took responsibility for what was happening and took steps to prevent them from recurring.
After early March there are only two incidents on Ms Baker’s timeline: 16 th March: Domestic incident 26 th June: “Day 2 of [T’s] friends sitting in driveway with loud music and bass in evening near 9pm and again at 10.30pm”
Ms Clifton disputed the more recent ‘incidents’. Ms Clifton said that one of their neighbours is now hyper-sensitive to any “disturbances” on or near the property. Ms Clifton said that she feels like she is being watched very closely by that neighbour.
There are three units in this complex. Unit 1 is currently vacant. Ms Baker said that there was previously a single female tenant in that property. She left after she suffered a serious accident. There is no evidence of any complaints raised by that tenant.
Unit 3 is currently occupied by two recent immigrants. Ms Baker has not received any complaints from those tenants. Ms Baker did receive complaints from the previous tenants of unit 3. Those tenants lived at unit 3 from November 2017 until January 2024. I was provided with a written statement from them.
Most of the complaints have come from a couple who live next door to the units.
People who live in close proximity will, on occasion, have their peace, comfort, and privacy disrupted by their neighbours. Arguments happen. Our neighbour’s taste in music or in friends may not align with our own.
The task for the Tribunal is to determine when those interferences become “unreasonable”. That includes consideration of the nature and seriousness of the proven incidents, and also the frequency of them.
In this instance: a. The frequency and seriousness of the domestic incidents amounted to an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of Ms Clifton’s neighbours. Those incidents sometimes involved violence and police attendances. b. The incident on 30 January 2024 was not “caused or permitted” by Ms Clifton. The person who caused the disruption and who immobilised the vehicle was not invited onto the property by anyone residing at Unit 2 or by their guests.
I am satisfied there has been a breach of the duty not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of the tenant’s neighbours during the tenancy, because of the domestic incidents. The breach is not capable of being remedied.
The next question is whether it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination.
I am satisfied that the situation has substantially improved, beginning around March this year.
Although the couple who live next door are understandably sensitive to any noise / disturbance coming from unit 2, Ms Clifton and her family are not obliged to ‘tread on eggshells’ and avoid making any noise that disrupts the peace of their neighbours. As noted above, people living in close proximity must accept noise, including unpleasant / disruptive noise. Similarly, although Ms Baker and Ms Neunzerling would prefer not to be worried about the possibility of future incidents, that possibility is not grounds for terminating the tenancy.
At the hearing Ms Clifton agreed that the situation is no longer tenable. She is looking for another tenancy.
My finding is that it would be unjust to terminate the tenancy as long as the current improved behaviour continues. It is reasonable to allow Ms Clifton the opportunity to find a suitable new property and to give notice. Tenant application
The application raises issues to do with leaks / dampness, cockroaches, and interference with peace comfort, and privacy.
The peace comfort and privacy issue related to Ms Clifton’s view that her neighbours are watching her closely, and reporting any minor issue immediately to Ms Baker. If Ms Baker receives a complaint, she sends Ms Clifton a message about what she has been told. Sometimes Ms Clifton receives these messages at night.
I accept that this is irritating for Ms Clifton.
However: a. Ms Baker does not have any control over the actions of Ms Clifton’s neighbours. b. If Ms Baker receives a complaint, the appropriate and correct first step is to let Ms Clifton know about it as soon as possible.
This does not amount to an unreasonable interference with Ms Clifton’s peace comfort and privacy.
In terms of leaks / dampness, Ms Clifton said that: a. At the beginning of the tenancy there was a patch of damp / mouldy carpet in the lounge. The walls in the lounge were wet. b. They raised the issue with the landlord, but no action was taken.
Ms Baker said that: a. Ms Clifton raised an issue about dampness / mould soon after the beginning of the tenancy. b. She arranged for the roof to be checked and the gutters cleared. c. Some more (minor) work was done on the roof in June 2023. d. Since then, the only issue that Ms Clifton has occasionally raised is mould, but Ms Clifton has provided any photographs and she has not seen any mould when doing property inspections.
In terms of cockroaches, Ms Clifton said that she has attempted to control the problem as best she can with ‘off the shelf’ pest control products.
Ms Baker was not aware of any cockroach problems before this application was filed.
I accept that the amount of information given to Ms Baker in respect of these issues was not sufficient to trigger a response.
Control of pests is a shared responsibility between landlords and tenants. Tenants must take reasonable steps to mitigate pests. If there is a serious infestation, Ms Clifton is entitled to ask for help from the landlord. Ms Baker did not dispute this. Ms Baker has no way of knowing how bad the problem is and whether Ms Clifton needs help. If Ms Clifton wants help, she could send Ms Baker a message asking for professional cockroach treatment.
It is reasonable for Ms Baker to require some evidence of the nature and extent of the mould / leaks issue so that she can take appropriate steps.
There is no basis for a work order or an award of compensation in respect of these issues. Outcome
Although both applications raise issues of genuine concern, for the reasons given above my finding is that it is not appropriate to make an order terminating the tenancy at this time, and it is not appropriate to make a work order or compensation order in respect of the tenant’s application.
Therefore, I must make an order dismissing both applications.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4801522 — Mould & damp at Flat 2, 15 Central Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4801522 — Mould & damp at Flat 2, 15 Central Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110

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