News

Email: Serious breach of tenant’s privacy

Friday 18th of June 2021

The tenant, who has name suppression, had applied for a reduction of her fixed-term tenancy due to end on July 9 this year. The property was managed by Solomon Realty.

She had a two-year fixed term tenancy from July 2019. The Australia-based landlords, Marion and Yaakov Gorr, were clear it would end after two years as they intended to either move into the property or sell it to provide money for their retirement.

The tenant did not want to continue living at the property after it was put on the market in April, as she faced difficulty in being able to find a new tenancy for herself, partner, three children and a dog, that would start when the current tenancy ended.

While trying to find alternative premises, which caused her a lot of stress, the tribunal heard it was made worse when Solomon Realty sent an email to her place of work the day before the tribunal hearing.

She had recently started work as a property manager and the email was sent to one of her colleagues. It read:

“Your colleague’s application to the Tenancy Tribunal tomorrow may cause significant damage to the reputation of your agency in the unlikely event that it succeeds. (Tenant’s name) has clearly not thought through the implications of her application terribly well. You or (the business owner) might like to call me to discuss.”

Distressed at the email, the tenant was called into a meeting with the business owner to discuss her personal situation.

At the tribunal hearing, Solomon Realty initially denied sending an email to the tenant’s workplace but then accepted it had sent it but insisted it was not relevant to the hearing.

When adjudicator K Goldsbury was discussing the email with Solomon Realty, the tenant became visibly upset.

“I consider this email to be a serious breach of the tenant’s privacy,” said Goldsbury.

“It had a significant impact on the tenant, and I am satisfied she would suffer severe emotional hardship if the term of the tenancy is not reduced and she is forced to continue in a tenancy with this landlord.”

New tenancy

The tenanted property is owned by the Gorr’s personal superannuation fund and they are retiring at the start of July this year.

The tenant started looking for a new property to rent in April and she initially found two suitable properties, but neither would allow a dog, and neither was willing to delay the start of the new tenancy until July 9.

On May 14 the tenant submitted her application for a reduction of the fixed term.

This application stated she had found a new property and believed the landlords ware unreasonably withholding their consent to an early termination of the tenancy.

The difficulty in finding a new tenancy property was stressful, said the tenant, and this was intensified when she found a suitable property and had to decide whether or not to take it.

She felt she could not pass up on an opportunity to secure a suitable home for her family because another suitable property might not become available before the end of the fixed term tenancy. She signed the new tenancy agreement and it took effect from June 2.

The tenant’s application was based on the change that had occurred in the rental market since she entered into the fixed term tenancy.

During that time Covid-19 has had a profound impact on the housing market. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of rental properties available at any particular time.

The severe shortage of properties means tenancy agreements are signed within a short time of the properties becoming available.

There has also been a significant increase in the level of rents during this same period. Nobody could have foreseen these changes at the time the parties entered into their fixed term tenancy agreement, said Goldsbury.

Rent for the property was $410 a week and the rent for the new tenancy $650 a week.

“This rent difference is partly a reflection of the increases in rent over recent times and partly a reflection of the higher quality of the new tenancy property and location,” says Goldsbury.

The tenant told the tribunal paying both rents at the same time would create significant financial and emotional stress for her. She and her partner are both working, and she was having to work a second job to help get through.

The tenant produced a letter from her doctor confirming she was under significant stress arising from these pressures.

Landlords’ claims

The landlords told the tribunal they would suffer hardship if the term was reduced.

They would lose the rent payments for the remainder of the fixed term and would not be able to find replacement tenants for such a short period.

The landlords also believed that their property could be vandalised, and squatters move in if it was left empty.

They said their insurance policy will be made null and void if the house was left empty and if the property was damaged the sale could be lost, and they could potentially lose all of their retirement funds.

No evidence was produced to the tribunal to support any of these claims other than some general statistics quoted from newspaper reports and police records.

Goldsbury did not find the arguments persuasive, particularly as there has been an unprecedented rise in house prices over the last two years.

“They will be receiving a lot more from their house sale than they would have anticipated in 2019.

“In this context, the loss of rent at the end of the tenancy becomes less significant and the tenant’s hardship is greater than the landlords.”

Goldsbury did not make an order for compensation to be paid because Solomon Realty’s landlord’s action in sending an email to the tenant’s workplace contributed to the decision to reduce the term of the tenancy.

“I find the tenant should not have to pay compensation to someone who has seriously breached her privacy while attempting to interfere with her right to make an application to the tribunal.”

The tribunal ordered the tenancy to end on June 11.

Comments (0)
Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.