The landlord is a provider of social housing for the Ministry of Social Development and the tenants live in separate flats in a two-flat building.

Names and addresses of the landlord and tenant have been suppressed.

The tenant made a claim against the landlord for failing to ensure other tenants did not interfere with her peace and comfort in her home and for not providing a door chain. 

The Tenancy Tribunal heard the tenant has significant vulnerabilities arising from a disturbing and traumatic experience in her past.

Evidence was heard of how the neighbouring tenant, himself a vulnerable person, had consistently engaged in behaviour that emulated, in many ways, features of the traumatic experience.

This experience makes her fear men – feel nervous, worried and insecure in their presence – particularly when they speak loudly, enter her personal space or exhibit offensive or irregular behaviour.

The tribunal was told the neighbouring tenant played loud music, resulting in several noise control callouts; said offensive things about the tenant from his flat, loudly, so she could hear; intimidated the tenant and her visitors; unnecessarily walked on to the tenant’s front yard and verge to place his rubbish for collection; and consistently came out of his flat at the same time as the tenant did, for no apparent reason, often watching the tenant as she went about her business.

This left her feeling on-edge and insecure in her own home.

MSD had injudiciously placed the two tenants in adjoining flats, said the landlord. But it was ultimately given no option to refuse the ministry’s direction regarding the placement of tenants in its available homes.

Steps taken reasonable

Despite this, the tribunal said the tenant’s peace and comfort had been interfered with by the neighbouring tenant even though the landlord tried to resolve the situation and the steps taken were reasonable in themselves.

The landlord’s representative at the tribunal accepted the steps taken to address the neighbouring tenant’s behaviour might not have been communicated to the tenant, which added to her concerns the behaviour was continuing, and, despite her complaints, nothing was being done.

The tribunal said the landlord might have done more to ensure it did not place the tenants so near to each other in the first place – given their personal circumstances and vulnerabilities.

In response to this point, the landlord said it relies on the contractual supply arrangement with MSD, which does not allow it to pick and choose tenants.

The next tenant on MSD’s social housing waiting list is assigned to the landlord’s next available property.

In some cases the landlord has been able to challenge MSD on placements. But neither the landlord nor MSD have perfect information about social housing tenants.  

Termination difficult

As for the landlord taking steps to terminate the neighbouring tenant’s tenancy, the tribunal said it is a difficult question.

It accepted the landlord’s view the neighbouring tenant was a vulnerable individual with challenging behaviours.

And that while the landlord tried to relocate him to a new property, no organisation would agree to enter the flat to shift him on health and safety grounds because of the premises’ inhospitable state and condition.

The landlord also offered to relocate the tenant, but she declined two housing offers and finally agreed to relocate to a new property that suited her requirements.

In a similar previous case, the Porirua District Court found while it was reasonable to move either neighbour, if the tenant was not prepared to move and had done nothing wrong, there should have been no reason not to move the neighbour, who was the source of the problem.

In this case, the landlord told the tribunal competing policy imperatives make matters more complicated. It must work with vulnerable persons, like the neighbouring tenant, to support and guide them towards independent living.

It had assisted the neighbouring tenant through a very life-changing transition.

The tribunal said the landlord is not absolved from liability to pay compensation to the tenant.

“The fact that the landlord apparently did not have the option to move the neighbouring tenant away, or provide alternative accommodation for the tenant earlier, does not displace this liability.

“The tenant should not have had to move in the first place and should not have had to contend with the neighbouring tenant’s bad behaviour,” its decision said.

In fact, said the tribunal, the tenant said she would have hoped for even half of the support the neighbouring tenant had received.

“In the end, she felt she was the problem and her complaints were largely ignored.”

Compensation

In assessing compensation for the tenant, the tribunal said it had to take into account the landlord’s steps in addressing the tenant’s complaints, the fact she turned down two offers of other premises and remediation work on other homes was put off, to prioritise work on a single home for her.

“It is clear the landlord was working behind the scenes to address the tenant’s concerns, but perhaps more could have been done to communicate outcomes and timeframes,” said the tribunal’s decision.

However, taking into account the 15 months the problem persisted, the nature of the disturbances from the neighbouring tenant and the effect of the behaviour on the tenant’s life and rehabilitation, the tribunal ordered the landlord to pay compensation at the lower end of the scale of $53 a month for 15 months and 17 days, equalling $827.

It dismissed her other claim the landlord failed to provide a door chain on the front door to the premises.

The tribunal said the existing lock on the front door rendered the premises reasonably secure and though the tenant’s experiences made her feel more vulnerable, and justifiably so, realistically, the threat of a home invasion at the premises was not made more probable because of her past experiences.