What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953374?

The tribunal order states: The application is amended to include a claim for ret.

How much money was awarded in case 4953374?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953374?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790051-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953374?

The tribunal order states: The application is amended to include a claim for ret.

How much money was awarded in case 4953374?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953374?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790051-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

59B Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953374 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953374 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 September 2024	$750.00	Rent arrears to 4 September 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

The application is amended to include a claim for ret.

The tenancy of Joanne Timothy at 59B Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Justin Baker, at 10am on Wednesday 4 September 2024.

Joanne Timothy must pay Justin Baker $777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The tenant’s application is dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 4 September 2024$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$777.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$777.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant, Ms Timothy, attended by way of teleconference.

Ms Timothy applied for exemplary damages for harassment by the landlord, Mr Baker. Mr Baker cross applied for a possession order based on a notice he issued to terminate the tenancy. He also applied for a rent arrears order.

Ms Timothy accepts the amount of rent claimed.

Ms Timothy has moved out of the premises, and she agreed to the tenancy being terminated with possession being granted to Mr Baker. Mr Baker was unaware until today that Ms Timothy had vacated.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act.

Where the breach of the tenants’ right in section 38(2) is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded: sections 38(3) and 109(4) of the Act. 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.

Ms Timothy claims that Mr Baker harassed her by not giving the correct notice to end the tenancy and by text messages to her regarding moving out of the premises.

I do not consider that the text messages from Mr Baker to Ms Timothy or the giving of an incorrect notice to terminate the tenancy amount to harassment as that term is defined (above).

Mr Baker had given Ms Timothy notice to end the tenancy because he needed the premises to live in. Mr Baker initially did not issue the correct notice to end the tenancy (he said that he needed the property vacant in 30 days) but it is clear that Ms Timothy did receive a notice from Mr Baker on 23 July 2024 giving the correct 63 days notice. I accept Mr Baker’s evidence that he misunderstood the notice period he was required to give until Ms Timothy told him it needed to be 63 days and therefore the giving of the initial incorrect time to vacate was simply an error, it was not intended to harass Ms Timothy. The subsequent text messages from Mr Baker to Ms Timothy were mostly inquiring whether she had found another place to live (some were also about other matters including late rent payments). There is nothing in the language used by Mr Baker in these text messages that could be regarded as intimidating or harassing and at no time did Ms Timothy indicate any concerns about the messages in her replies to him.

Ms Timothy’s claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee

Mr Baker has been fully successful in his claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

Ms Timothy applied, in her application for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

However, Ms Timothy has been fully unsuccessful in her claims. Her application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953374 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 September 2024	$750.00	Rent arrears to 4 September 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

Order

The application is amended to include a claim for ret.
The tenancy of Joanne Timothy at 59B Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Justin Baker, at 10am on Wednesday 4 September 2024.
Joanne Timothy must pay Justin Baker $777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant’s application is dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 4 September 2024$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$777.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$777.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant, Ms Timothy, attended by way of teleconference.
Ms Timothy applied for exemplary damages for harassment by the landlord, Mr Baker. Mr Baker cross applied for a possession order based on a notice he issued to terminate the tenancy. He also applied for a rent arrears order.
Ms Timothy accepts the amount of rent claimed.
Ms Timothy has moved out of the premises, and she agreed to the tenancy being terminated with possession being granted to Mr Baker. Mr Baker was unaware until today that Ms Timothy had vacated.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act.
Where the breach of the tenants’ right in section 38(2) is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded: sections 38(3) and 109(4) of the Act. 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.
Ms Timothy claims that Mr Baker harassed her by not giving the correct notice to end the tenancy and by text messages to her regarding moving out of the premises.
I do not consider that the text messages from Mr Baker to Ms Timothy or the giving of an incorrect notice to terminate the tenancy amount to harassment as that term is defined (above).
Mr Baker had given Ms Timothy notice to end the tenancy because he needed the premises to live in. Mr Baker initially did not issue the correct notice to end the tenancy (he said that he needed the property vacant in 30 days) but it is clear that Ms Timothy did receive a notice from Mr Baker on 23 July 2024 giving the correct 63 days notice. I accept Mr Baker’s evidence that he misunderstood the notice period he was required to give until Ms Timothy told him it needed to be 63 days and therefore the giving of the initial incorrect time to vacate was simply an error, it was not intended to harass Ms Timothy. The subsequent text messages from Mr Baker to Ms Timothy were mostly inquiring whether she had found another place to live (some were also about other matters including late rent payments). There is nothing in the language used by Mr Baker in these text messages that could be regarded as intimidating or harassing and at no time did Ms Timothy indicate any concerns about the messages in her replies to him.
Ms Timothy’s claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee
Mr Baker has been fully successful in his claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Ms Timothy applied, in her application for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, Ms Timothy has been fully unsuccessful in her claims. Her application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953374 — Rent arrears at 59B Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953374 — Rent arrears at 59B Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions