Landlord’s ‘verbose’ and extensive emails to tenant cited in ruling

A tenant whose “verbose” landlord sent her lengthy emails she deemed “insulting and abusive” has been awarded $100.

According to a Tenancy Tribunal ruling, Nelson man Gaimhreadhan O’Coileain, also known as George Amber, sent his tenant an “extensive number of emails”.

In one, O’Coileain instructed her to: “…specifically check for emails at least once daily and respond comprehensively within 26 hours of the timestamp on incoming emails using an interleaved style with trimmed quoting.”

In his ruling, adjudicator Michael Brennan told O’Coileain his “verbose” emails contributed to a “fractious tenancy relationship”.

READ MORE:
* International students warn about boarding house loopholes
* Alternative community ‘dream’ sours as eviction battle heats up

It’s not the first time O’Coileain’s communications have been raised by tenants: in 2020, his former boarders complained of lengthy, near-daily emails and pages of pernickety house rules.

As well as the constant contact, the boarders raised an incident where they were told to deep clean a laundry for several hours.

The ruling said the tenant, who has name suppression, moved into O’Coileain’s central Nelson property in June 2021.

O’Coileain’s response to her initial enquiry about the property was a “harbinger” of what was in store, Brennan said.

“Is there a good reason why you ignored what we wrote in our advert?” the landlord emailed her. “E-MAIL us ALL your relevant data – biographical details like date of birth, future plans & aspirations.

“No FULL name = NO REPLY… No working phone number = probably NO REPLY. Ask any variation of ‘still available?’ = DEFINITELY NO REPLY from us”.

With O’Coileain overseas for long periods, he appointed an agent, Joseph Angelo, to oversee the tenancy.

(Angelo has been involved in tenancy tussles of his own: recently, a High Court decision ordered him to leave his Golden Bay commune. O’Coileain appeared in Angelo’s support at the High Court hearing.)

Problems soon arose: Angelo, living remotely, was difficult to contact. When the tenant contacted O’Coileain instead, he “insisted on certain formats and reply protocols that I consider onerous,” Brennan said.

When the tenant emailed Angelo about a leaking roof, he replied the following day, copying a number of people into the email. The tenant objected to the copied parties being privy to the conversation, sparking a “prolonged” exchange.

The to-and-fro over the roof led to a deterioration of the landlord-tenant relationship stymieing repairs and leading to the end of the tenancy, Brennan said.

In the tenant’s application, she cited “rude, insulting and abusive emails”, and said her own emails had been forwarded to numerous recipients.

O’Coileain’s counter-claim included a number of demands, which included a rent increase to be paid in arrears, and instructions that the tenant keep the property’s fences “clean and free from lichen”.

While the tenant had claimed for $420 compensation for the leaking roof, Brennan awarded her $100, payable by Angelo, citing her part in the relationship breakdown that prevented repairs.