Latest news with #TenancyTribunal
RNZ News
18 hours ago
- RNZ News
Tenancy Tribunal orders landlord Jake Sim to pay tenant $3500 for unlawful entries, breaching his peace
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist, Taranaki of Photo: 123rf A man leaving his home for work at 6.30am went to jump into his work van but unexpectedly found his landlord sitting in it, drinking a handle of beer. The incidents were a part of a bigger tenancy issue in which Sim turned up at the property intoxicated and banging on the doors, and on other occasions, unlawfully let himself in. According to a recently released decision, the concerned tenant began setting "traps" to catch Sim in the act and also changed the locks, which, legally, he was not allowed to do. Eventually, because of Sim's "behaviour", the tenant, who can not be named, gave notice to end the tenancy late last year. Even moving out was an issue as the pair disagreed on what day the tenancy ended. The tenant said it was 17 November, while Sim said it was the 15th. Sim broke into the house on the 15th and was then blamed by the tenant for the alleged theft of $3000 and two rings after his gun safe was allegedly forced open. The tenant later complained to the Tenancy Tribunal, claiming compensation and exemplary damages for alleged unlawful entries by Sim and breaches of his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. A recently released decision stated the tenancy started on 4 April 2022, and while the tenant paid rent from that date, he was in the process of selling his own home and did not completely move into the rental until around June 2022. The tenant told the tribunal that on 23 April that year, he went to the rental, the location of which was redacted from the decision, and found a treadmill set up and a TV mounted on a wall. A half-empty handle of an alcoholic drink had been left beside the treadmill. The tenant questioned Sim, and his reply was to the effect of "I can do what I like, I own the property". The tenant reiterated that he was paying rent and Sim could not enter whenever he liked. But sometime during the following week, the items were removed, again, without notice being given to enter the property. According to the decision, Sim, who lived near the rental, had not been invited over and the tenant, who took a photo of Sim in the van to use as evidence, did not expect him to be sitting in his vehicle. The tenant's partner told the tribunal that on other occasions, Sim turned up, often intoxicated, banging on the door and calling out to her. "She said that she stopped answering the door to him. She also gave evidence of the nature of his comments and conversation; she described it as inappropriate and made her feel uncomfortable." The tribunal accepted her evidence and found it was consistent with the tone of Sim's messaging. The decision stated that the tenant began "setting traps" when he was going away to see whether someone was entering the property. While the decision didn't detail the traps, it said that when the tenant found a closed bathroom door open on his return in April 2024, he approached Sim. He said Sim admitted to taking "a sneaky look at the bathroom". While Sim did not turn up to the tribunal hearing, he did provide written submissions in which he said he went into the house on that occasion to look at the shower drain, though there was no evidence of it being an emergency. Around mid-2024, the tenant changed the locks to the house. He acknowledged it was a breach of his obligations as a tenant but said he felt he had no other option. The tribunal ruled it would not order him to pay exemplary damages, given the context in which the locks were changed. As the tenancy came to an end and the tenant was in the process of moving out, Sim indicated he knew the locks had been changed. He texted the tenant saying, "I can always get in". Sim then said he had used a lock-picking kit to let himself in on November 14. Then, on November 15, when he believed the tenancy had ended, he climbed through a window. The tenant claimed that when he returned to the premises on November 16 to finish moving, his gun safe had been opened and $3000 in cash and two rings were gone. Messages from Sim showed that he denied opening the safe but said he had left the house unlocked. "I will admit to breaking in but you are not allowed to change the locks without informing the owner," he texted the tenant. "Can you give me an indication of what was taken and I'll personally pay it back." While the tenant sought to recover the cash from Sim, the tribunal was not satisfied there was enough evidence to prove the money and rings were removed from the safe. But it did find that the tenancy end date was 17 November and that Sim had entered the rental unlawfully on November 15 and four other occasions. He also "displayed a persistent, cavalier attitude to the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment of the premises", the tribunal ruled. He was ordered to pay the tenant, who was awarded name suppression, $2000 compensation and $1500 in damages. -This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Tenancy Tribunal orders landlord Victor Davis to pay $9k following illegal storage unit tenancy
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice reporter of Photo: Jonathan Weiss / 123RF A father desperate for accommodation moved into a storage unit in an industrial zone with his five-year-old daughter and their pet, paying $430 a week for space with no fresh air or natural light. The illegal tenancy lasted only a matter of months and ended "very badly", leaving the girl "emotional" and the man extremely stressed. According to a Tenancy Tribunal decision, the landlord, Victor Davis, had told the man to leave and then, a week before Christmas, locked them out of the unit and seized some of their belongings. Now, about six months on, the man said he was still trying to rebuild his life. He told the tribunal he could not believe how Davis treated him and described what happened as being "kicked out of his home" and that the effect was "gut-wrenching". The tribunal found the man had entered into the tenancy agreement in good faith and that Davis was likely motivated by money and had profited unfairly. Davis claimed he rented the man a storage unit and was not aware he had decided to live there. However, the tribunal found evidence, including that they signed a standard residential tenancy agreement, proved he had most likely rented the industrial unit as a home, and knew that he was not allowed to. "The living situation was so unusual that the landlord must have known he should check with the council before advertising and offering to rent to the tenant," the tribunal's decision said. The man, who has name suppression, turned to the tribunal in the days after his tenancy ended last year, claiming compensation and exemplary damages because of how it ended. Davis counterclaimed for rent arrears and compensation for moving the man's belongings. In the recently released decision, the tribunal said the man urgently needed accommodation when he answered an advertisement relating to the unit. The storage unit was located in an industrial area of Ōtaki, on the Kāpiti Coast, and the only entrance was through a large garage roller door. There was an office space at the back of the unit where the man and his daughter lived. It had no external windows and the only way they could get fresh air and daylight was to have the garage door open, which meant the unit would fill up with dust and debris. The man came from a three-bedroom house and utilised the storage part of the unit for storage. In the office space, there was a bathroom with "some sort of extractor fan that the tenant had no control over", and a kitchenette with a fridge, a sink and some hobs. They were allowed to have their pet live with them, though the decision does not state what animal the pet was. The tenancy lasted around 17 weeks, during which he paid $6020. It started falling apart around October last year, when the man gave Davis a "heads up" that he would be moving out because he did not feel safe living in the unit. The man said that on 4 December, there was an argument and Davis told him he had two days to leave. However, Davis told the tribunal he could not recall telling the man to move out, but he was concerned about rent arrears, drugs and safety. A few days after the argument, there was allegedly no power or water in the unit. The man said he took that as a sign that Davis was forcing him out, so he stopped paying rent. Davis said he did not turn the power and water off. The man bought a campervan to live in and began organising the move of his belongings. But on 18 December Davis screwed the garage door shut, preventing access to the unit. He said he locked the man out because he and others threatened to hurt him and damage the unit. The police were called and officers helped the man to get access. He collected his pet and some essentials. It was negotiated that the man could return the following day to collect the rest of his things. He told the tribunal that he had about an hour-and-a-half to enter and chose the most useful belongings to put into his car and trailer. The rest was left behind. He claimed Davis then put some of his belongings outside, where they were ruined, and refused to return what was left inside. He claimed he lost between $10,000 and $15,000 of belongings, including appliances, computer gear, some furniture, clothing toys, and sports gear. Davis told the tribunal that the man left behind a mess and removed everything of value. What was left outside and in the storage unit was rubbish, Davis claimed. He has not allowed the man access since. Following the hearing, which both parties attended, the tribunal found largely in favour of the man. It found the storage unit was not lawfully consented for residential use and therefore the tenancy was unlawful. The decision stated that in the event of such a finding, the tribunal can order the landlord to repay the tenant all the rent they paid, or a lesser amount in special circumstances. Davis was ordered to refund $3500 of the man's rent. That amount weighed the "detriment to the tenant in terms of discomfort and amenity", and "the need to discourage landlords from renting premises that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes". When considering whether Davis ended the tenancy without grounds, the tribunal was more persuaded by the man's evidence. It ruled it was ended by Davis telling the man to leave, then denying him access, which was unlawful and resulted in an order for Davis to pay exemplary damages of $3250. The tribunal also found that Davis seized the man's belongings, leading to a damages order of $1000. The man failed to prove the claim for the list of belongings he said were lost, with the tribunal finding that, logically, the man would take the most valuable items first when given a limited time to pack, and there was no way of proving what was left behind. However, Davis was still ordered to pay $2000 in compensation for stress, inconvenience, and the likely loss of household items. The tribunal dismissed the claim that Davis had interfered with the man's services, relating to the power and water allegation, as well as claims Davis had entered the unit without consent or notice, and another of a breach of quiet enjoyment. Davis' counterclaims were also dismissed with the decision noting that when the tribunal finds unlawful premises, it can not order the tenant to pay rent arrears or compensation, unless there are special circumstances, which there were not. He has been ordered to pay the man a total of $9777, which includes a filing fee. * This story originally appeared in the [ link here New Zealand Herald].
RNZ News
07-06-2025
- RNZ News
Tenant quits lease after apartment hits almost 44C, bond refunded
By Tracy Neal, Open Justice multimedia journalist of File pic Photo: 123RF A tenant says the sweltering heat inside their apartment reached temperatures well into the 40s - ruining a laptop, killing pot plants and requiring medicines to be stored in a car where it was cooler. Now the tenant has been allowed to break a year-long lease and get their bond back, a month after moving in. It comes after NZME reported concerns this year that tens of thousands of Auckland families would suffer in overheating terraced houses and vulnerable people could risk "dying of heatstroke" unless construction designs changed. That story described how large windows, a lack of eaves or other shade, no consideration of a property's direction towards the sun and poor ventilation were causing overheating in old and new builds. In this instance, the tenant, whose name was suppressed after a Tenancy Tribunal hearing, said the excessive heat inside their one-bedroom, sixth-floor apartment was evident soon after moving in. The building, in an undisclosed location, was managed by a body corporate, but the landlord remained liable to the tenant under the rental agreement and by law. On a day in March this year, the tenant recorded the temperature inside the east-facing unit at 43.6C before midday. The next day, the mercury had risen to 38.5C before 9am, even with the living room window open and after the air conditioning had been running, according to evidence presented to the tribunal. The tenant said it was difficult to sleep in such heat, pot plants didn't last beyond a day and that it was not safe storing a co-tenant's medication inside the apartment, so they left it in a car. The tenant said the heat had caused the battery in a laptop to expand, damaging the computer beyond repair. The tenant also said the windows in the apartment did not open wide enough to allow sufficient draught, but the landlord disagreed and suggested the tenants "had not been using them properly". The landlord also took temperature readings in the living room with the curtains closed and then open. The afternoon temperatures, 26.4C and 28.3C were high, the tribunal said, but not as high as those recorded by the tenant. The landlord also produced a Healthy Homes Standards report showing that the unit complied with the applicable ventilation requirements. In a recently released decision, the tribunal ordered the $2440 bond be returned to the tenant, plus partial reimbursement of electricity charges it cost to run air conditioning, over and above standard power charges. The tenant was surprised to receive two invoices totalling $96 to cover the cost of running the heat pump/air conditioning unit while they lived there. However, the landlord said they had explained at the start of the tenancy that the power supply to the air conditioning unit, which was based on usage only, was controlled by the body corporate and invoiced separately. The tenant paid the invoices but claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the calculation of the charges or to prove the usage claimed was exclusively attributable to themselves. The landlord produced spreadsheets provided by the body corporate, which they claimed set out how the charges were calculated. The tribunal said that based on the evidence, it accepted the tenant's submission that the method of calculation was unclear, but there was no dispute that the tenant had used the air conditioning unit and was therefore liable for some of the costs claimed. The tenant's application to reduce the fixed term was dismissed. Agreement was instead reached between the tenant and landlord to end it earlier than the contracted date. A new tenancy began on 11 April, the tribunal said. The New Zealand Property Investors Federation told NZME that investors should do due diligence on any property they buy, especially in light of recent media coverage about hot townhouses. Advocacy manager Matt Ball said there was nothing in the tribunal's decision, or in general, to say that new townhouses would not make a good investment. He said there were opportunities for investors willing to do any necessary remedial work, such as installing ventilation or air conditioning. -This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
Otago Daily Times
03-06-2025
- General
- Otago Daily Times
Tenancy terminated over assault threats
A man who threw plastic chairs at his frightened neighbours, before letting off a gas bottle in the shared hallway and shouting "boom, boom, you can all die", has lost his Salvation Army flat. Quinton Rihari could not be reached for the Tenancy Tribunal's hearing, where the Salvation Army sought to terminate the tenancy on his central Dunedin flat, saying he had threatened to assault other tenants in the complex. According to the tribunal's recently released decision, Rihari received written warnings about his behaviour at his Thomas Burns St flat on three occasions. The first was on December 27 last year, when he broke a painting in the corridor during a fight. It began at 3.30am and lasted for an hour and a half. Then, in February, he verbally abused tenants when they asked him to turn his music down. Two months later, on April 14, the Salvation Army says Rihari became angry and threw plastic chairs off a shared balcony, frightening other tenants. After returning to his room, Rihari let off a 9kg LPG bottle in the hallway, yelling "boom, boom, you can all die". Police were called and took Rihari away, but he returned and begin yelling at the other tenants, calling them "narks". Later that day, he told another tenant he was going to "punch her head in". Again, police were called and Rihari was taken away. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the tribunal can terminate a tenancy if it's satisfied a tenant has engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions during a 90-day period and received written notice on each occasion. The decision found that while Rihari received separate notices for each incident, the three incidents spanned 108 days, outside the 90-day period. Despite this, as the tribunal found Rihari had threatened to harm his neighbours, it agreed to terminate Rihari's tenancy. By Catherine Hutton
Otago Daily Times
03-06-2025
- Otago Daily Times
Man loses Dunedin flat after threatening neighbours
A man who threw plastic chairs at his frightened neighbours before letting off a gas bottle in the shared hallway and shouting "Boom, boom, you can all die", has lost his Salvation Army flat. Quinton Rihari couldn't be reached for the Tenancy Tribunal's hearing, where the Salvation Army sought to terminate the tenancy on his central Dunedin flat, saying he'd threatened to assault other tenants in the complex. According to the tribunal's recently released decision, Rihari received written warnings about his behaviour at his Thomas Burns St flat on three occasions. The first was on December 27 last year, when he broke a painting in the corridor during a fight outside his room. It began at 3.30am and lasted for an hour and a half. Then, in February, he verbally abused tenants when they asked him to turn his music down. Two months later, on April 14, the Salvation Army says Rihari became angry and threw plastic chairs off a shared balcony, frightening other tenants. After returning to his room, Rihari let off a 9kg LPG bottle in the hallway, yelling, "Boom, boom, you can all die". Police were called and took Rihari away, only for him to return and begin yelling at the other tenants, calling them "narks". Later that day, he told another tenant he was going to "punch her head in". Again, police were called and Rihari was taken away. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the tribunal can terminate a tenancy if it's satisfied a tenant has engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions during a 90-day period and received written notice on each occasion. Antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes significant alarm, distress or nuisance. The decision found that while Rihari received separate notices for each incident, the three incidents spanned 108 days, outside the 90-day period. Despite this, the tribunal found Rihari had threatened to harm his neighbours over the gas cylinder incident and threatened to assault another neighbour. As a result, it agreed to terminate Rihari's tenancy. When the Salvation Army was approached for comment late this afternoon, its media officer Kai Sanders said no one was available for comment, adding this wasn't something the organisation would usually comment on because of its strict rules around privacy. - Catherine Hutton, Open Justice reporter
