A landlord filmed her tenant, resulting in an "assault". Photo / Getty Images
A landlord filmed her tenant, resulting in an "assault". Photo / Getty Images
After a landlord hit record on her mobile phone and began filming her “aggressive” tenant, the tenant hit the woman’s hand in an attempt to move the phone away from her face.
But the landlord then claimed the “assault” was so serious she needed to see a physiotherapist and was forced to take time off work.
The incident was heard by the Tenancy Tribunal among a number of other allegations brought against each other by both parties, who cannot be named.
While the tribunal upheld the landlord’s claim she had to see a medical professional in relation to the “assault”, it rejected she had to take four days off from her employment at a childcare facility as a result.
Following the hearing into the long-standing tenancy conflict, centered on a property in Manukau, the tribunal released its decision last month.
In it, it detailed the landlord’s application to terminate the fixed-term tenancy, which was otherwise due to end in December 2023. She also claimed compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond.
In response, the two tenants applied for work orders, compensation and exemplary damages.
In considering whether the tenancy should be terminated, the tribunal ruled one of the tenants breached their obligations by assaulting the landlord on August 29 this year and that there was no remedy available but to end the lease.
It said on July 3 this year, one tenant shouted and swore repeatedly at the landlord when the woman attended the property.
The tenancy has been terminated. Photo / Stock Image 123rf
“When the landlord went to leave, the tenant stood by the landlord’s car and raised a fist at her.”
The following month, the assault occurred.
“The landlord felt intimidated and reported these incidents immediately to police.”
Police reports and video evidence of the parties’ altercation at the property were provided to the tribunal.
While the tenant did not deny the assault occurred, they submitted it was not serious and described it as a “light push” to stop the landlord from “waving her mobile in [their] face”.
The tribunal found the parties’ communication had completely deteriorated and that there was real potential for matters to escalate to a further assault.
“It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the parties have been involved in ongoing disputes where the tenant has made threatening gestures towards the landlord and the landlord has felt intimidated,” it ruled.
“The situation has escalated because the landlord has remained steadfast in their approach that they have the right to attend the tenant’s property and refused to leave when the tenants have asked them to.”
The tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $25 for the physiotherapist fees, after an invoice was produced in evidence, but dismissed the landlord’s claim for $1248 compensation for loss of income. There was no proof she had to take any time off work.
In light of the terminated tenancy agreement, the landlord claimed a total of $4728 in loss of rent, landlord fees to find new tenants and related petrol costs.
While she was unsuccessful in those claims, the tribunal did order the tenants to pay her $199 in advertising fees to market the rental property.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for the assault and a further claim of $3000 for the “mental stress she suffered from this tenancy” were also rejected by the tribunal.
She had submitted she suffered ongoing sleep disturbances and distress as a result of the tenants’ “aggressive behaviour”.
But the tenants responded that the landlord constantly harassed them and “created a lot of the turmoil” during the tenancy.
As a result of the ongoing treatment from the landlord, one of the tenants suffered hair loss and had to attend counselling.
The tenants provided a catalogue of claims for compensation which equated to $23,411. It covered items such as gardening work, a damaged washing machine, harassment and disturbing quiet enjoyment, and not being able to use the shower.
Each of the claims were rejected, as were the tenants’ bid for exemplary damages, allegations they were discriminated against, and that the landlord had breached Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants also claimed work orders for the landlord to fix the water temperature in the shower but due to the tenancy being terminated, this was also dismissed.
The tribunal terminated the tenancy and granted possession to the landlord effectively immediately.
