Key Takeaways
- The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the tenants $1,500 for breaches of quiet enjoyment and $1,000 for delayed/inadequate repairs, but denied exemplary damages.
- Ongoing, unannounced visits by the garage‑conversion project manager (Sin) interfered with the tenants’ peace, comfort and privacy, including an alleged intrusion into a bedroom while occupants were naked.
- Property manager Eddie Wongeoon permitted Sin’s interference despite telling her not to attend without an appointment and advising tenants to call police if she continued.
- The hot‑water cylinder leak was reported months before it was finally replaced; tenants endured three weeks of a high‑pitched noise and used makeshift solutions (duct tape, a bucket).
- The landlord succeeded in claiming $690 for door repairs and recovered costs for a cooktop, air‑conditioning remote and carpet cleaning; a handrail claim was rejected.
- The tribunal found no intent to cause harm on the part of Wongeoon or Sin, so exemplary damages were not justified.
- Tenants expressed disappointment, describing the denial of exemplary damages as a “slap in the face” and questioning whether to appeal.
- The case highlights the limits of tribunal remedies when landlord‑agent conduct is deemed negligent rather than intentional, and underscores the importance of clear boundaries for third‑party access to rental premises.
Tribunal Outcome and Compensation
The Tenancy Tribunal’s decision, released recently, granted the five tenants a total of $2,500 in compensatory damages. $1,500 was awarded for breaches of their quiet enjoyment, reflecting the persistent interference they endured throughout the one‑year tenancy that began on December 28, 2024. An additional $1,000 compensated them for delayed and inadequate repairs to the property, notably the bedroom door and hot‑water cylinder. Notably, the tribunal refused to award exemplary damages, determining that the landlord’s agents did not act with the intent to cause harm required under the Act. This outcome left the tenants feeling that the financial redress did not fully capture the stress and inconvenience they experienced over the year.
Alleged Interference with Quiet Enjoyment
Central to the quiet‑enjoyment claim was the conduct of Sin, the project manager overseeing the garage conversion. Although Sin held no legal standing in relation to the tenancy, tenants testified that she was “pretty much always there” on the premises. Her visits were frequently unannounced and tended to occur after 6 p.m., disrupting the tenants’ reasonable expectation of peace and privacy. The most serious allegation involved Sin entering a bedroom while one tenant and her boyfriend were lying naked on a bed; Sin denied the incident, but the tribunal found the tenants’ account credible, especially given that property manager Eddie Wongeoon and the property owner appeared to acknowledge the problem. The tribunal concluded that the tenants’ enjoyment of the property was substantially diminished by these continual intrusions.
Role of the Property Manager
Eddie Wongeoon, representing Wongeoon Vast Limited, was engaged by the unnamed landlord to manage the Upper Riccarton property. While Wongeoon himself did not directly interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment, the tribunal found that he permitted Sin’s interference by failing to enforce adequate boundaries. Wongeoon told the tribunal he had spoken with Sin and her son, instructing her not to attend the property without an appointment arranged through him, and advised the tenants to call the police if she continued to appear uninvited. Despite these steps, Sin’s visits persisted, indicating that Wongeoon’s responses were insufficient to stop the intrusion. The tribunal noted that while Wongeoon lacked intent to harm, his inadequate oversight contributed to the loss of the tenants’ peaceful enjoyment.
Hot‑Water Cylinder and Repair Delays
The tenants also highlighted serious shortcomings in the landlord’s repair obligations. A leak in the hot‑water cylinder was first reported by the tenants to Wongeoon on August 18, but the cylinder was not replaced until September 8—a gap the tenants argued was actually three months longer, based on text messages they produced as evidence. During the waiting period, the cylinder emitted a high‑pitched sound for about three weeks, and tenants resorted to placing a bucket under the leak and using duct tape to keep a damaged bedroom door panel in place after panels fell off and were poorly re‑affixed. Wongeoon characterized the door repair as “quite ugly,” and the tenants testified that the door continued to drag on the carpet, compromising both privacy and functionality. The tribunal accepted that these delays and substandard repairs caused a measurable loss of enjoyment, warranting the $1,000 repair‑related compensation.
Landlord’s Claims and Tribunal Findings
In addition to the tenants’ claims, the landlord sought reimbursement for alleged damage to the property. The tribunal upheld claims for a cooktop, the replacement of an air‑conditioning remote control, and carpet cleaning. It also awarded the landlord $690 for repairs to a door that the tenants had accepted as damaged. Conversely, the claim concerning a handrail was rejected; the tenants provided evidence that the handrail was never properly secured to the wall, would move when touched, and had been removed by them during inspections and stored in the garage. The landlord’s attempts to recover costs for these items were therefore unsuccessful, reinforcing the tribunal’s view that the tenants were not liable for damage stemming from pre‑existing deficiencies or improper installation.
Tenants’ Reaction and Perception of Justice
Paige Galland, one of the lead tenants, described the denial of exemplary damages as a “slap in the face.” She explained that, after consulting numerous lawyers, property managers and landlords ahead of the hearing, the group had anticipated a larger award that would feel justified for the year‑long ordeal. Galland expressed disappointment, noting that the effort and stress invested in preparing for the tribunal seemed inadequately recognised by the outcome. While the tenants accepted the compensatory amounts, the lack of punitive damages left them feeling that the tribunal did not fully acknowledge the severity of the interference and neglect they endured. Galland indicated uncertainty about pursuing an appeal, suggesting that the emotional toll of the process might outweigh any potential further gain.
Legal Context and Implications
The tribunal’s reasoning hinges on the distinction between negligent or careless conduct and intentional wrongdoing required for exemplary damages. Adjudicator Greene found that while Wongeoon demonstrated a “fundamental lack of understanding” about his role as the landlord’s agent, and Sin appeared unaware that her behaviour was inappropriate, neither exhibited the deliberate intent to cause harm that would trigger an award of exemplary damages. This interpretation underscores a limitation in the tenancy‑law framework: tenants can recover compensation for actual losses but may struggle to obtain additional sanctions unless they can prove purposeful misconduct. The case serves as a reminder to landlords and property managers that even absent intent, repeated unauthorized access by third parties and delayed repairs can still give rise to significant compensatory liability. It also highlights the practical importance of clear communication, defined boundaries for contractors, and prompt attention to maintenance issues to avoid costly tribunal findings.