Latest news with #TenancyTribunal
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Ex-nurse accused of hate crime avoids conviction
A controversial former nurse who was accused of a hate crime at a pro-Palestine rally has avoided conviction over the incident. Jennifer May Scott, 37, appeared in the Dunedin District Court yesterday facing charges of disorderly behaviour, resisting police and failing to remain stopped. Prosecutor Sergeant Simon Reay, though, confirmed Scott had completed diversion on the latter charge and the other counts were withdrawn. The police diversion scheme allows predominantly young or first-time offenders to make amends for their crimes — sometimes by making a reparation payment, writing an apology letter, attending counselling or completing voluntary work — to avoid a mark on their criminal record. However, Scott already has a conviction for intentional damage from 2023 after spray-painting explicit phrases on an ex-boyfriend's ute. The terms of her recent diversion were not discussed in open court. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 1 last year when Scott was allegedly driving in the Octagon. She was accused of filming pro-Palestine protesters with her phone and yelling "Palestine rapes and murders babies. Palestine isn't a country". Scott allegedly ignored police instructions in the aftermath and resisted officers trying to handcuff her. Yesterday's withdrawal of charges was a rare win for Scott after last year was littered with setbacks. The woman, who has called herself "Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] of the South" online, courted controversy in August after setting up an online fundraising page, complete with a photo of her and her partner, claiming they were homeless and needed money for a campervan. The partner was identified as a double-murderer formally known as Gresham Marsh and Corrections confirmed he had a home and was being "closely managed". The photo and all reference to him was subsequently removed from the web page. The following month, after a hearing Scott failed to attend, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal cancelled her nursing registration. The ruling pointed to her spreading of vaccine disinformation and repeated episodes of transphobia as reasons for the decision. Tribunal chairwoman Theo Baker said the misconduct brought discredit to the profession and was "sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary sanction". Scott was also ordered to pay costs of more than $45,000. Then in October, she was on the wrong end of a decision by the Tenancy Tribunal. Ms Scott made "wide-ranging claims" including assault, unlawful entry, breaches around storage, withholding of goods and breach of privacy after being evicted from a Macandrew Bay property. But adjudicator Rex Woodhouse said the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear her case because she was a "squatter" and it was therefore not a dispute between tenant and landlord. The house had been sold earlier in the year and the tribunal issued a possession order in favour of the new owners. Court reporter
Otago Daily Times
24-06-2025
- General
- Otago Daily Times
Deadline to comply with Healthy Homes rules looms
Hundreds, if not thousands, of Dunedin renters are living in cold, damp and mouldy houses. PHOTO: ODT FILES Time is running out for rental properties to comply with Healthy Homes rules. By July 1, all tenancies need to meet the rules. But what can you do if you're living in one that has not been brought up to standard? What are the Healthy Homes standards, anyway? The rules set basic standards for heating, insulation and ventilation. PHOTO: ODT FILES They have been introduced in stages, but from next Tuesday, every rental property needs to comply. Landlords need to provide one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat a home's main living room. These need to meet the minimum heating capacity. Properties need to be insulated in the ceiling and under the floor, unless the design of the home makes this impossible. Every liveable area needs a window or door that opens to the outdoors and can be fixed open. Kitchens and bathrooms need extractor fans. PHOTO: ODT FILES But what if your home doesn't meet these rules? All rental properties also need efficient drainage, guttering and downpipes and any gaps or holes need to be blocked. If you are reading through that list and thinking the place you're renting is not up to standard, there are a few things you can do. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment head of tenancy Kat Watson said tenants could start by talking to their landlords or property managers and checking for a Healthy Homes compliance statement in their tenancy agreements. If that does not solve the problem, they could then give their landlords written notice asking them to fix the issues. Tenants can give landlords a 14-day notice to resolve, requiring action on specific things. PHOTO: ODT FILES What if that doesn't work? If you have no luck with these steps, you can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for help. "An adjudicator can make decisions such as issuing a work order for the landlord to bring the property up to standard, order compensation to be paid for failing to do so in the first place or award damages to be paid by the landlord for not meeting minimum standards for rental properties," Ms Watson said. "For serious or repeated breaches — especially those affecting vulnerable individuals — you can contact the tenancy compliance and investigations team. "Tenancy Services' website has great resources for first-time tenants, to help them understand what to expect and what to look for when moving into a rental home, particularly for those renting for the first time. Tenants are responsible for keeping a rental property reasonably clean and tidy." By Susan Edmunbds
NZ Herald
22-06-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Tenant awarded $3500 after North Shore rental fails Healthy Homes standards
A property management business has been fined after a North Shore rental property was found to breach Healthy Homes standards. The Tenancy Tribunal made the award to the tenant who rented a home on Bryers Place, Bayview near Glenfield. Hendo Holdings trading as Quinovic Property Management Takapuna was the agent
RNZ News
21-06-2025
- 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
20-06-2025
- 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].
