Sally Lindsay
Using CCTV to spy and record personal conversations between his boarding-house tenants in order to micromanage them has cost a Wellington landlord $1000 in exemplary damages and a finding of harassment.
Banny Singh also tried to inappropriately impose his own exacting standards of cleanliness and order on tenants Elias Rouass and Ai Takahashi through a shared WhatsApp group, the Tenancy Tribunal has heard.
The boarding-house did not display notices warning tenants about the presence of CCTV cameras and the tenants were not aware that the system also recorded audio.
Rouass and Takahashi told the tribunal Singh used CCTV to spy and record personal conversations in and around the shared area of the boarding-house.
In response, Singh accused Rouass of stealing food and alcohol belonging to him and other tenants, and threatened to evict Rouass and Takahashi numerous times, report them to the police and to get a lawyer and debt collector involved in dealing with them.
Other complaints about the tenants included messages from Singh about a single piece of toilet paper photographed in the toilet bowl, about restricting Rouass’ use of a common toilet while Takahashi was unwell, about doors being left open and a heating ring being left on in the kitchen.
Singh also sent messages about wearing shoes inside the house, with references to camera footage, although the landlord claimed there were no cameras inside the house.
The tenants filed a tribunal claim for 30 weeks’ rent in compensation (totalling $7910) and claims for harassment and damages. They said the landlord had also failed to fix the shared toilet immediately adjacent to their room, in response to a 14-day notice.
The pair also said Singh made Rouass help him move a 100kg-plus bag of garden waste which injured Rouass’ wrist.
And they said the landlord had failed to lodge their bond with the bond centre within the required period of time.
Aggressive and controlling
Tribunal adjudicator C Boys said the WhatsApp messages were frequent and showed a worrying level of micromanagement.
“The tone of some of the messages was inappropriately aggressive, controlling and threatening.”
During the tribunal hearing, Singh indicated he had retained files of recorded footage throughout the period of the tenancy, which ran from October 2023 until June last year.
Boys said the landlord appeared to have been monitoring the tenants. There were references during the hearing to Singh being aware of Rouass getting up and going outside to have a cigarette early in the morning and of Takahashi climbing through her bedroom window when she had forgotten her keys.
Singh even provided photos showing Rouass smoking outside on five occasions, including at 11.44pm and at times between 5am and 6am.
He also offered photos taken inside Rouass and Takahashi’s room, but claimed they were taken by another tenant.
Quiet enjoyment
Boys said the act of signing a lease transferred the rights of the property to the tenant in return for rent and that included the right of quiet enjoyment, which the landlord was legally required to respect.
Singh, who also lives in the house, had misunderstood his obligations, Boys said.
“He is clearly house-proud. However, the root of the problem in this tenancy largely stems from his attempts to inappropriately impose his own exacting standards of cleanliness and order on tenants.”
Under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) a boarding-house landlord can put house rules in place. But rather than using this mechanism, Singh used WhatsApp.
“The intention of these interactions was to threaten and control Rouass and Takahashi and the other tenants in an overbearing manner. This was harassment,” Boys said.
Section 66G of the RTA protects a boarding house tenant’s quiet enjoyment for the use of the whole premises, not just their room.
“The presence of cameras in a person’s home, even in boarding-house shared areas, is problematic as a person should be able to relax without the knowledge their landlord is watching and listening to them.”
Singh had used stills from camera footage in the WhatsApp messages and in texts to Rouass and Takahashi, showing he regularly reviewed the CCTV footage to obtain material he then used to control tenants’ behaviour.
The landlord told the tribunal the cameras were for the safety of the tenants. It appeared the tenants were aware of, and consented to, the presence of these cameras.
However, s11(3) of the RTA prevents tenants’ rights from being contracted out.
Singh also admitted to monitoring Rouass and Takahashi when they were leaving and entering the premises.
During the hearing, he offered to provide copies of his recordings to the tribunal.
But Boys said, “The use of the cameras was in breach of Rouass and Takahashi’s rights to quiet enjoyment, and their use was part of the pattern of controlling behaviour which was harassment.”
Rouass and Takahashi said living in the boarding-house was highly stressful. Takahashi felt uncomfortable because of Singh’s actions.
Boys said he had “real concerns” about Singh’s patronising tone towards the tenants, his repeated threats of eviction, legal action and police involvement and his unlawful monitoring of the tenants, which justified an award of exemplary damages.
But he noted Singh’s relative inexperience as a landlord and awarded only $1000.
An award of $500 was made for failing to lodge the bond but the claim about the bag of garden waste was dismissed. Boys said it was not an act of harassment as Rouass had agreed to help Singh and his injured wrist should have been an ACC claim.
The counter- claim
Singh’s counter-claim included $6300 for emotional damage because of behaviours he claimed Rouass and Takahashi engaged in during the tenancy; $6000 for emotional damage and the costs of opposing Rouass and Takahashi’s claim; and $15 for alcohol he alleged was taken by Rouass.
Singh also claimed there was a fight between Rouass and Takahashi, which caused distress to other tenants. The pair accepted there was an argument and voices were raised.
The landlord alleged the issues were ongoing, but the messages provided in evidence show a single incident in March 2024, Boys said.
Singh also claimed the pair stole food from other tenants. However, on the few occasions they used cooking oil or canned goods they mistakenly believed were theirs, the goods were replaced.
“The evidence also showed other tenants used food which was not theirs,” Boys said. “In a shared kitchen arrangement, such issues will almost always arise.”
Another of Singh’s allegations was drunkenness and drug use but Boys found the evidence provided was at best equivocal.
He said he was unimpressed that these issues has been raised when Singh took no steps during the tenancy to use the mechanisms available in the RTA to address violence or antisocial behaviour.
“If these events were as serious as he alleges, it makes no sense that he asked Rouass and Takahashi to extend their tenancy after they had given notice.”
Boys dismissed Singh’s claims.
Read the decision here
0 Comments