A tenant who abused her landlords – including suggesting one of the landlords was about to leave her husband and take their children – has been warned she will not get name suppression if she appears before the Tenancy Tribunal again in similar circumstances.
The woman entered into an agreement to rent a flat over the landlords’ garage for a year, starting from February 1 last year.
But the relationship with the landlords soured early, and by February 10, the tenant had made an application to the Tenancy Tribunal and the landlords had obtained a trespass order against her.
Messages traded on February 1 about moving in were initially amicable, Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator R Kee said, but became increasingly tetchy over issues such as whether there was existing damage and when an entry inspection would happen.
The tenant, who told the tribunal hearing she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, “expressed her agitation with the move-in process” and said the landlords were interfering with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.
When the couple returned from Tauranga, where they had been on holiday, there was a “heated face-to-face altercation.”
The adjudicator noted that the landlords videoed one of the exchanges, in which the tenant launched into a “vituperative barrage of abuse” at the man. They phoned the police and his wife moved out of the house with their young children.
On February 3, the tenant called a mental health crisis team after she found the man in the garage, and he told her he had the right to be there.
The tenant told the tribunal that she wanted compensation for the fact the premises had been unclean, and the landlords had harassed her.
The adjudicator said while the premises needed a deep clean, the owners had not intentionally left it in a less than reasonably clean condition, and $200 was reasonable in compensation. The garage was not part of the tenancy so there was no unlawful entry.
On the issue of harassment, Kee said the landlord’s messages were not designed to upset the tenant.
“They contain detail that upset and ultimately overwhelmed the tenant, but they are responsive to the tenant’s emails and are appropriate.
“The tenant was tired and distressed, already having suffered a bereavement and having to move in difficult circumstances. The further complications with the move-in were just too much for her to bear. She reacted emotionally to the landlords’ messages, which were relatively innocuous.
“The landlords’ responses would have been manageable for another tenant who was not so distressed.”
The claim was dismissed.
During the hearing, the tenant also alleged she woke to see the male landlord sitting on her bed, but Kee said this was far-fetched, particularly because she had not mentioned it until that point.
For their part, the landlords said the tenant had harassed them.
The woman “emphatically refuted” the tenant’s messages that claimed her husband was abusive and she was going to leave him.
“The tenant’s verbal tirades were so horrific that she moved away from the premises to protect her four and six-year-old children,” Kee noted.
But the adjudicator said because the landlords could not refer to a Residential Tenancies Act provision or legal provision that provided for a landlord claim of harassment, their claim was dismissed.
The adjudicator said the tenant’s behaviour was concerning and would be the sort of thing that might make future landlords not want to grant her a tenancy.
“She filed a claim in the tribunal against the landlords on the first day of the tenancy, when the landlords had done little wrong and had no opportunity to correct any genuine issues. Second, later on the first day of the tenancy, soon after the landlords arrived, she aggressively yelled insults and threats against the landlords.”
Kee said, in deciding whether to make the tenant’s name public, that her mental health problems tipped the balance in favour of suppression.
“The tenant has significant problems, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Those problems are exacerbated by stress … I accept the tenant’s mental health issues are real. Her doctor’s letter confirms that. Moreover, the tribunal’s other files for the tenant indicate that the tenant has resorted to mental health crisis teams before in the tenancy context.”
But Kee said if she appeared again in similar circumstances, it was unlikely non-publication would be ordered again. If she contacted the landlords, the decision would be reopened.
“The tribunal accepts the tenant caused the landlords serious emotional harm.”
Carrie Metcalfe, a property manager and company owner at iRentProperty, said property managers had systems that would help them to avoid problem tenants.
Her business only accepted references from professional property managers, for example: “It seems to be much more reliable when we work in an industry-specific way.”
She said the suppression of tenants’ names was common.
“It doesn’t necessarily make a lot of sense, the reasons why. It does make life really tricky. It’s good to understand how adjudicators are making these judgement calls because it can affect how we prepare for the tribunal in the future.
“We believe it should be a fairly transparent process. While name suppression may be awarded, it should only be given in well understood circumstances. It disadvantages the industry if we don’t have material oversight of issues that could cause us problems down the line.”
Renters United said a number of private Facebook groups had been set up over the years to share information about problematic tenants, but these were against the law.
rnz.co.nz