Key Takeaways
- The tenants knew a garage renovation would occur when they moved in, but they did not expect the landlord’s mother, Ying Sin, to visit the property repeatedly and without invitation.
- Sin’s unannounced visits—including an incident where she entered a bedroom while a tenant was naked with her boyfriend—were found to breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises.
- Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator Brett Greene ruled that Sin acted without intent to cause harm, so exemplary damages were denied, but the tenants received $1,500 for the breach of quiet enjoyment and $1,000 for delayed and inadequate repairs.
- The property manager, Eddie Wongeoon, was aware of Sin’s visits and told her to stop, yet he permitted the interference by not taking stronger action, contributing to the tenants’ loss of peace, comfort and privacy.
- Repair issues—such as a bedroom door that dragged on the carpet and a hot‑water cylinder that leaked for months—were also deemed breaches, reinforcing the tribunal’s finding that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state.
Introduction and Background
When the group of flatmates moved into the Upper Riccarton rental property on 28 December 2024, they were informed that a garage conversion would be taking place during their tenancy. The renovation was being managed by Eddie Wongeoon of Wongeoon Vast Limited, who had been hired by the (unnamed) property owner. What the tenants did not anticipate was that the owner’s mother, Ying Sin, would become a frequent, uninvited presence in the home throughout their year‑long stay.
Ying Sin’s Uninvited Presence
Throughout the tenancy, Sin was described by the tenants as “pretty much always there.” She often arrived after 6 p.m., sometimes asking to be present but most of the time showing up without any notice. The tenants reported her visits to Wongeoon on several occasions, telling him that her continual presence disrupted their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. Despite being told to arrange appointments through Wongeoon, Sin continued to drop by unannounced.
The Bedroom Incident
One of the most serious allegations came from a tenant who said Sin entered her bedroom while she and her boyfriend were lying naked on the bed. Sin denied the incident, but the tribunal found the tenants’ account credible. Adjudicator Brett Greene noted that Wongeoon and apparently the owner had acknowledged that something was occurring, which corroborated the tenants’ evidence. Greene described the bedroom intrusion as a serious breach of the tenants’ right to privacy.
Tribunal Proceedings and Claims
The flatmates took their case to the Tenancy Tribunal, claiming that Sin’s repeated intrusions constituted a breach of their quiet enjoyment under the Residential Tenancies Act. They also sought exemplary damages, arguing that the landlord’s representatives had acted with intent to cause harm. The tribunal had to determine whether the landlord (or its agents) had acted intentionally, as exemplary damages are only awarded when such intent is proven.
Adjudicator’s Findings on Intent
Adjudicator Brett Greene concluded that while Sin’s behaviour was inappropriate and intrusive, she “seemed to me to be a person who had no idea that what she was doing was inappropriate.” He found no evidence that Sin or Wongeoon acted with the intent to cause harm. Consequently, the claim for exemplary damages was dismissed. Greene stressed that the lack of intent, however, did not excuse the interference; it merely meant that the higher penalty was not warranted.
Compensation Awarded
Despite dismissing the exemplary damages claim, Greene awarded the tenants $1,500 for the breach of quiet enjoyment, reflecting the ongoing interference with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. An additional $1,000 was granted for delayed and inadequate repairs, acknowledging the landlord’s failure to maintain the property in a habitable condition. The total compensation thus amounted to $2,500.
Tenant Reaction
Paige Galland, one of the tenants who initiated the tribunal claim, described the dismissal of exemplary damages as a “slap in the face.” She said that after consulting lawyers, property managers and other landlords before the hearing, the group had expected a larger award or at least a sense that their year‑long ordeal had been justified. The outcome left them feeling that the tribunal had not fully recognized the severity of the interference they endured.
Ying Sin’s Role and Legal Standing
Although Sin served as the project manager for the garage conversion, she held no legal standing in relation to the tenancy agreement. The decision noted that her involvement stemmed from her familial connection to the owner, not from any contractual authority. Nevertheless, her constant presence on the premises effectively acted as an uncontrolled landlord‑like figure, contributing to the tenants’ loss of enjoyment.
Property Manager’s Response
Eddie Wongeoon testified that he had contacted Sin and told her she could not attend the property without an appointment arranged through him. When she continued to appear, he spoke to her son and advised the tenants to call the police if the visits persisted. Greene observed that while Wongeoon took some steps to curb Sin’s behaviour, he could have done more—such as issuing a formal warning or involving the owner directly—to prevent the interference.
Evidence of Frequent Visits
The tenants provided text messages and testimony showing that Sin’s visits were not isolated incidents but a pattern occurring throughout the tenancy, especially in the evenings. Wongeoon acknowledged that Sin was often “looking after the property,” including doing gardening, but her actions went beyond reasonable property oversight and entered the realm of personal intrusion.
Tribunal’s View on the Bedroom Intrusion
Regarding the bedroom incident, Greene stated: “The incident when Sin entered a bedroom was serious. While Sin denied the tenants’ accusations, the fact that Mr Wongeoon, and apparently the owner, recognised what was happening corroborates the tenants’ evidence.” This statement underscored the tribunal’s reliance on corroborating evidence when the defendant’s denial conflicted with the tenants’ consistent account.
Permission of Interference
Although Wongeoon did not directly interfere with the tenants’ peace, comfort or privacy, Greene found that he “permitted the interference by Sin.” By allowing her continued access despite knowing it caused distress, Wongeoon failed to uphold his duty to protect the tenants’ statutory right to quiet enjoyment.
Repair Issues: Door and Hot Water
Beyond the intrusion complaints, the tenants highlighted ongoing repair problems. Panels had fallen off a bedroom door; after a repair described by Wongeoon as “quite ugly,” the door dragged on the carpet, forcing the tenants to use duct tape to keep it functional. The tribunal accepted that this defect compromised privacy and safety.
The tenants also reported insufficient hot water for about three weeks, during which the hot‑water cylinder emitted a high‑pitched sound. They claimed they had notified Wongeoon of the leak three months before it was finally addressed. Wongeoon countered that the leak was reported on 18 August and the cylinder replaced on 8 September, with the work arranged by Sin. The tenants produced text messages indicating earlier complaints, suggesting a delay in response that exacerbated their inconvenience.
Adjudicator’s Assessment of Repair Delays
Greene found that the tenants suffered a loss of enjoyment from the delayed repairs, especially concerning the hot‑water cylinder. He emphasized that being able to use a shower without hindrance and having a bedroom door that closes properly are fundamental to a habitable dwelling. The landlord’s failure to attend to these issues promptly amounted to a breach of the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state.
Lack of Understanding of Landlord Responsibilities
The adjudicator remarked that both Sin and Wongeoon displayed a “fundamental lack of understanding” about who the landlord was and what obligations that role entailed. Sin’s actions stemmed from ignorance rather than malice, while Wongeoon’s insufficient response reflected a misunderstanding of his duty to enforce the tenancy agreement and protect tenants’ rights.
Conclusion and Implications
In sum, the Tenancy Tribunal recognized that the tenants’ quiet enjoyment was compromised by both the intrusive conduct of Ying Sin and the landlord’s delayed repairs. While the tenants did not receive exemplary damages due to the absence of intent, they were awarded monetary compensation for the proven breaches. The case highlights the importance of clear boundaries for family members or agents involved in rental properties, the need for property managers to act decisively when unauthorized persons interfere with tenants’ rights, and the landlord’s ongoing responsibility to maintain habitable conditions despite ongoing renovations. The outcome serves as a reminder that even well‑intentioned but misguided actions can give rise to enforceable tenant claims.