What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4850385?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application (4850385) is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4850385?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850385?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10418259-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4850385?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application (4850385) is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4850385?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850385?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10418259-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 12 Ewenson Avenue, One Tree Hill, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4850385 — Healthy homes

Order

The tenant’s application (4850385) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards and for breaches of section 60AA and section 38.
At the hearing the tenant advised that the Healthy Homes standards issue had been resolved with the installation of a heat pump. That claim was dismissed.
The tenant advised that the issue of the landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds was considered at the earlier hearing. That claim was also dismissed.
The remaining claim was in relation to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. In relation to this the tenant referred to the landlord not giving the required notice when attending with contractors.
It seems that the tenants moved in and were aware that some things had not been completed but were keen to move in. The things that hadn’t been completed were the installation of the heat pump, the carpeting of the garage, building the deck and hanging of curtains. This meant that the landlord needed to arrange for contractors to attend early in the tenancy for these matters to be addressed.
The tenant claims that the landlord has entered the premises without providing the necessary notice. The landlord said that when the tenants moved in, they were advised that contractors would be attending.
The tenant referred to several occasions where the landlord attended without notice but where the tenant allowed the landlord and or contractors in.
Section 48(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry.
The landlord had knocked on the door and the tenant let her enter. The tenant could have not allowed entry and would have been entitled to. The landlord would then need to give other notice as provided for in section 48(2) to (3).
At the hearing the landlord said that she was keen to have the outstanding work completed for the benefit of the tenant. Now that the work has been completed there is no reason for the landlord to attend as regularly and the required notice should be complied with.
The tenant referred to the landlord attending on 29 February 2024. The tenant said that the landlord turned up at the property and knocked on the door at 9am. The landlord had earlier (8.11am) sent a text to the tenant’s carer (ex-partner and mother of tenant’s children), who lives in the premises. The carer had agreed to the visit.
While the landlord did not give 24 hours’ notice of the visit the carer, who on the evidence can be considered the tenant’s agent, gave consent for the visit immediately before and the tenant further gave consent by letting the landlord and the plumber enter the premises.
On the evidence the tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the Act in relation to landlord entry. The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord is monitoring him, and he is being spied on. He thinks this because he said the landlord moved in next door and installed a CCTV camera pointed towards the premises.
The landlord denied moving in next door and instead said that she was there regularly as she is preparing the premises to be let as an Air BNB. In relation to the CCTV camera the landlord said that she installed it on the fence at the end of the driveway. She said that this was installed partly due to complaints by the tenant such as that the landlord had tried to run over one of the tenant’s children.
The tenant removed the CCTV camera and apparently damaged it. If the tenant thinks that his privacy is being invaded by a CCTV camera, then that is an issue more appropriately dealt with by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Since moving in the tenant said that the Police have attended on six occasions and Oranga Tamariki, the government agency tasked with protecting children, has also attended. In addition, workers from Women’s Refuge have attended. The tenant thinks that the landlord is responsible for these attendances. At the hearing the landlord denied calling the Police.
Whether or not the landlord or some other person has called the Police, Oranga Tamariki or Women’s Refuge, this is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot prevent someone from contacting these agencies. If the calls are not valid or warranted, then that is a matter for those agencies.
The tenant referred to other issues that he has had during the tenancy including parking issues, rubbish bins, neighbours monitoring him and complaining about noise at 4am. These are not matters that warrant an order of the Tenancy Tribunal. Those parts of the tenant’s claim are dismissed.

Order

The tenant’s application (4850385) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards and for breaches of section 60AA and section 38.
At the hearing the tenant advised that the Healthy Homes standards issue had been resolved with the installation of a heat pump. That claim was dismissed.
The tenant advised that the issue of the landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds was considered at the earlier hearing. That claim was also dismissed.
The remaining claim was in relation to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. In relation to this the tenant referred to the landlord not giving the required notice when attending with contractors.
It seems that the tenants moved in and were aware that some things had not been completed but were keen to move in. The things that hadn’t been completed were the installation of the heat pump, the carpeting of the garage, building the deck and hanging of curtains. This meant that the landlord needed to arrange for contractors to attend early in the tenancy for these matters to be addressed.
The tenant claims that the landlord has entered the premises without providing the necessary notice. The landlord said that when the tenants moved in, they were advised that contractors would be attending.
The tenant referred to several occasions where the landlord attended without notice but where the tenant allowed the landlord and or contractors in.
Section 48(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry.
The landlord had knocked on the door and the tenant let her enter. The tenant could have not allowed entry and would have been entitled to. The landlord would then need to give other notice as provided for in section 48(2) to (3).
At the hearing the landlord said that she was keen to have the outstanding work completed for the benefit of the tenant. Now that the work has been completed there is no reason for the landlord to attend as regularly and the required notice should be complied with.
The tenant referred to the landlord attending on 29 February 2024. The tenant said that the landlord turned up at the property and knocked on the door at 9am. The landlord had earlier (8.11am) sent a text to the tenant’s carer (ex-partner and mother of tenant’s children), who lives in the premises. The carer had agreed to the visit.
While the landlord did not give 24 hours’ notice of the visit the carer, who on the evidence can be considered the tenant’s agent, gave consent for the visit immediately before and the tenant further gave consent by letting the landlord and the plumber enter the premises.
On the evidence the tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the Act in relation to landlord entry. The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord is monitoring him, and he is being spied on. He thinks this because he said the landlord moved in next door and installed a CCTV camera pointed towards the premises.
The landlord denied moving in next door and instead said that she was there regularly as she is preparing the premises to be let as an Air BNB. In relation to the CCTV camera the landlord said that she installed it on the fence at the end of the driveway. She said that this was installed partly due to complaints by the tenant such as that the landlord had tried to run over one of the tenant’s children.
The tenant removed the CCTV camera and apparently damaged it. If the tenant thinks that his privacy is being invaded by a CCTV camera, then that is an issue more appropriately dealt with by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Since moving in the tenant said that the Police have attended on six occasions and Oranga Tamariki, the government agency tasked with protecting children, has also attended. In addition, workers from Women’s Refuge have attended. The tenant thinks that the landlord is responsible for these attendances. At the hearing the landlord denied calling the Police.
Whether or not the landlord or some other person has called the Police, Oranga Tamariki or Women’s Refuge, this is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot prevent someone from contacting these agencies. If the calls are not valid or warranted, then that is a matter for those agencies.
The tenant referred to other issues that he has had during the tenancy including parking issues, rubbish bins, neighbours monitoring him and complaining about noise at 4am. These are not matters that warrant an order of the Tenancy Tribunal. Those parts of the tenant’s claim are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850385 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 5, 12 Ewenson Avenue, One Tree Hill, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850385 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 5, 12 Ewenson Avenue, One Tree Hill, Auckland

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