Say Gin Teh and Fei Fei Teh as Trustees for Arise Family Trust. TENANCY ADDRESS: 12 Chequers Avenue, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 ORDER

Transcription

1 [2018] NZTT Hamilton , TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT Hamilton APPLICANT: Say Gin Teh and Fei Fei Teh as Trustees for Arise Family Trust Landlord RESPONDENT: Robyn Lee Hazelwood Tenant TENANCY ADDRESS: 12 Chequers Avenue, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 ORDER 1. The applications by Say Gin Teh and Fei Fei Teh as Trustees for Arise Family Trust for termination of the tenancy of Robyn Lee Hazelwood and for orders for removal of items at the premises are dismissed. 2. Say Gin Teh and Fei Fei Teh as Trustees for Arise Family Trust must pay Robyn Lee Hazelwood $ immediately. Description Landlord Tenant Rent arrears to 24/7/2018 $ Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment $ Exemplary damages for harassment $ Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $ $ Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $ Reasons: 1. This order determines three applications between the parties, , and The tenancy between the Arise Family Trust and Robin Hazelwood commenced on 17 February 2018 for a fixed term until 19 January The maximum

2 number of tenants allowed were two adults being Ms Hazelwood and her daughter, Ms Kite, and her daughters aged 8 and By an application ( ) dated 6 April 2018 the Arise Family Trust sought to terminate the tenancy of Ms Hazelwood on the basis of methamphetamine contamination levels at the premises that made it unsafe for human habitation. Although the premises had not been tested for contamination prior to the tenancy commencing a composite test in April found the garage and bathroom reading averaged 4.89 ug /100cm 2. A composite sample gives an indication only of contamination and the landlord did not follow the recommendation of the testing company to have a comprehensive analysis undertaken. The Trust also sought an order that all security -related fixtures and other fixtures installed by the tenant be removed immediately. 4. This application was set down to be heard on 1 May Ms Hazelwood did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the Trust s application for termination on the basis that the its evidence was insufficient for the Tribunal to make a finding that the tenant caused or permitted to because substantial damage to the premises from the use of methamphetamine. 5. The Tribunal made an order that Ms Hazelwood remove any fixtures including cameras, lights and gate that had been installed by her or other people during the tenancy. 6. An application for rehearing was received by the Tribunal from Ms Hazelwood on 11 May In addition to Ms Hazelwood setting out the reasons why she was not at the hearing she also referred to a cross application that had been filed by her on 30 April ( ) 7. Following a hearing to consider this application Ms Hazelwood was granted a rehearing in respect of the order to remove the fixtures. 8. The rehearing together with the cross application and a further application from the Trust ( ) were set down to be heard on 24 July 2018 by a different adjudicator. Mr Teh, trustee of the Trust and Ms Hazelwood attended the hearing. Rehearing (413497) 9. The Trust sought removal of fixtures that had not been consented to namely gates or barriers around the entrances, security cameras and a hut in the backyard. Mr Teh said that after the methamphetamine test he had a feeling something bad might be going on and that is why the cameras and barricades were in place. 10. Mr Teh presented a photograph of an open mesh wire section of fence going from one corner of the house to the other boundary. On the house side, this was fixed with a piece of black insulation tape tied around the pipe leading to the hose tap. There was no photograph as to how the fence was affixed on the other side

3 however Ms Hazelwood said there was no fixing it just stood there. She said she often looked after her grandchildren and the only reason this piece of fencing was there was to prevent them running onto the driveway. 11. Mr Teh presented evidence showing there was a Spanish-style arch that you walked through to get to the courtyard. It appeared there was a large piece of board across the archway. The photographs did not show that it was affixed to the house in anyway and Ms Hazelwood said again the board was put across to prevent her grandchildren running onto the driveway. It was held in place by a pot plant on one side and had a roller at the bottom on the other side which meant it was easily movable. She also said it gave her a sense of protection to have it there and without the board the living areas looked directly into the neighbour s home. As there were four females living in the house she found it disturbing that her neighbours could view them eating breakfast sitting, in the front lobby area or in their pyjamas. 12. The hut that Mr Teh referred to was located in the trees on the periphery of the section. Ms Hazelwood produced a photograph which showed a piece of iron with a tarpaulin over some of the tree branches. It was agreed between the parties that the size of the structure was about 1 to 1.5 m². Mr Teh gave evidence that he had tried to wriggle the hut and that it was affixed to the ground but Ms Hazelwood said this was not correct and it was not affixed in any way. Her granddaughter had built the hut with some iron on the bottom and a tarpaulin over the top and it was in effect a playhouse where she and her friends would sit and play. 13. Mr Teh also submitted that there were two security cameras that should be removed. He said the he was concerned that the reason they were there suggested something untoward was going on in the property. Ms Hazelwood said that is not the case and the reason that they had put the two cameras there was for their own security as they had been concerns that someone was walking onto their property. She said the cameras were not permanently affixed but just attached by a piece of wire. This evidence is reinforced by the fact that after the previous order was made the cameras had been removed but had now been replaced. 14. Section 42 Residential Tenancies Act sets out the position regarding tenants fixtures. It states that a tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises or make any renovation, alteration or addition of or to the premises except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior consent of the landlord. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant won t alter the premises without the landlord s consent. 15. The legal definition of the term affix, means to permanently attach something to real estate such as planting trees and shrubs, constructing a building or adding to existing improvements

4 16. Taking into account this definition I find that none of the fences, the children s playhouse or the cameras have been permanently attached to the premises and for this reason Ms Hazelwood did not need the consent of the landlord as would have been required under section 42 if they had been regarded as fixtures that had been affixed. 17. The Trust s application to have the wire fence, the board, the cameras and the playhouse is dismissed. Arise Family Trust application ( ). 18. The Trust seeks to terminate Ms Hazelwood s tenancy on the basis of rent arrears, methamphetamine contamination, that the premises are not the main home of the specified tenant and residents, that the address provided on the pretenancy agreement was false, that there is smoking at the property and that Ms Kite has threatened a neighbour. Methamphetamine contamination 19. As outlined above, the Trust s original application sought termination of the tenancy for methamphetamine contamination and this application was dismissed as it had not been proved. 20. In the present hearing, it was explained to Mr Teh that as the Trust s application had already been dismissed at the previous hearing he could not now read litigate this matter. The principle of res judicata applies and that is that when a final judicial decision has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction the parties are prevented from disputing or questioning that decision in any subsequent litigation. Shiels v Blakely [1986] NZLR 262 CA 21. If Mr Teh had disagreed with the previous decision it would have been open to him to appeal or apply for a rehearing. Termination of the tenancy under Section On 4 May 2018 the Trust served a 14 day notice on Ms Hazelwood requesting removal of the items referred to above, that the tenancy only allowed 3 cars at any one time and there were more cars than that parked in the driveway, that he found about 50 cigarette butts outside and the tenancy did not allow smoking in the property and that there were no pets allowed. 23. Ms Hazelwood responded to this notice and in particular that she had never had a pet and that while the tenancy agreement said no smoking, she interpreted that to mean no smoking inside which there had never been and that when they smoked outside there was a receptacle for the butts. 24. Mr Teh did take some inspection photos but there were none of the alleged 50 cigarette butts and no evidence that there was a pet at the property. The circumstances in which consideration can be given as to whether a tenancy is terminated under section 56 is that it must be established that the other party

5 has failed to remedy the default within the required period. No date for compliance with this notice was given and there is no record of Mr Teh are conducting a reinspection to establish whether the requirements had been met. He did say however that the cameras had been reinstalled and the fences put back up however in light of my decision above I do not consider that this is a basis for termination. 25. Ms Hazelwood did admit in the hearing that they do smoke outside however it is not unusual that Ms Hazelwood understood the no smoking requirement to relate to only not smoking in the premises as this is a normal requirement in a tenancy agreement. 26. The application to terminate the tenancy under section 56 is dismissed. The premises are not the main home of the specified residents 27. In an amendment to his application Mr Teh wish to terminate the tenancy on the basis that Ms Hazelwood does not live at the premises and neither do Ms Kite s children. He submitted the only person living at the property was Ms Kite herself and maybe other people. No 14-day notice was served in respect of this alleged breach. 28. Mr Teh came to this conclusion because the neighbours had said they hadn t seen the children much nor Ms Hazelwood. 29. Further at an inspection of the property in April Mr Teh said there seemed to be a lot of furniture in the house and in the shed for just two adults. He said he couldn t see a sign of school books, study desks or uniforms for the children and he wondered where the children slept. He had however spoken to Ms Kite s eight-year-old daughter during the inspection. 30. Ms Hazelwood stated she does live at the property but that she leaves early for work and sometimes does not return until 10 or 11 at night as she also cares for her mother and often babysits her other grandchildren. She said at the time of the inspection there was lots of furniture in the house and garage as she and her daughter had moved to the house from individual houses bringing two households of furniture. She said they have now had time to rationalise that. 31. On balance, I find it more likely than not that the people set out in the tenancy agreement do reside at the premises as Mr Teh s evidence does not establish otherwise, drawn largely from assumptions. Misleading information on the pre-tenancy application 32. Mr Teh submitted that Ms Hazelwood had given him a false address when she had completed the pre-tenancy application and had also said she was a nonsmoker when in fact she admitted in the hearing that she did smoke. 33. The address given by Ms Hazelwood was 23 Taylor Avenue, Flagstaff. Mr Teh said there was no such address. There is a 23 Taylor Terrace, St Andrews but

6 not the address stated by Ms Hazelwood. He believed Ms Hazelwood was trying to mislead him. 34. Ms Hazelwood stated that as she had explained to Mr Teh at the time she applied for the tenancy, she was currently residing with her son as she had left her previous property as it was very cold and damp. Her son resided in St Andrews which as I understand is nearby to Flagstaff and she said she may have been confused when she put the suburb. She also stated that she had provided a written reference to Mr Teh from her previous landlord which stated the address she had lived at was 23 Taylor Terrace St Andrews. 35. I find that this confusion is not sufficient to establish that Ms Hazelwood misrepresented her address on the pre-tenancy agreement such as to justify termination of the tenancy. This equally applies to the fact that Ms Hazelwood noted herself as a non-smoker when in fact she admitted at the hearing that she did smoke. Verbal assault on the neighbour 36. Mr Teh said there was an elderly neighbour that lives on the right-hand side of the driveway to the tenanted premises. The driveway leading to each of the houses was shared but they each have their own respective of parking areas. 37. On 13 July Mr Teh received a complaint from the neighbour that Ms Kite had run towards him enraged, shouting and swearing. Mr Teh said Mr Pool, the neighbour, told him the words were, or words similar to this; We ve been f..ing nice to you until now but we ll make life f..ing awful for you now. The neighbour laid a complaint with the police citing Other threatening behaviour of language however this has proceeded no further and the police have not spoken to Ms Kite. 38. Ms Hazelwood said that she was at home on the day this occurred. Ms Kite had gone out to help move some vehicles around. Ms Kite said that the neighbour came over swearing at a driver of one of the cars and Ms Kite came around the corner of the house and heard this. She said she did lose her patience with the neighbour and they were both shouting at each other. 39. Section 55 of the Act provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied the tenant has assaulted or has threatened to assault or caused or permitted any person to assault any neighbour of the premises. Section 41 provides the tenant is responsible for anything done by any person who is on the premises with the tenant s permission. In this case that means that Ms Hazelwood is responsible for the actions of Ms Kite. 40. When considering the definition of assault the Judge in Greig & Riley v Housing Corporation of New Zealand CIV DC noted it included:

7 threatening by any act or gesture to apply force to another person if the person making the threat has or causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he has a present ability to affect his purpose. 41. In this case I find that the Trust has not established the verbal assault reached the sufficient level to establish the tenancy should be terminated. In addition Mr Pool was not present to give evidence and did not provide a written statement as to exactly what happened and what was said. Ms Kite did provide an explanation of the circumstances around what happened and while she accepts that she did lose patience and shout at the neighbour this is not sufficient to terminate the tenancy. Rent arrears 42. I am satisfied at the date of the Trust s application the rent was more than 21 days in arrears and at the date of hearing there was an amount outstanding for arrears of $ Section 55 of the Act provides that if the rent is more than 21 days in arrears at the date of application the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. I defer however on making any order for termination into all the claims by Ms Hazelwood have been considered. Claim by Ms Hazelwood ( ) 44. Ms Hazelwood claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment and interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. She is claiming compensation and exemplary damages for harassment. 45. Section 38 Residential Tenancies Act provides: (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act. 46. The phrase peace, comfort and privacy is broad, and essentially covers any intrusion, limit on use or nuisance that might arise. It is considered that the definitions of those words that relate to use are as follows: Peace in the use of the premises is freedom of the mind from annoyance, distraction, dissension, anxiety, insecurity or noise that might arise from unwarranted attendance, challenge or intrusion

8 Comfort in the use of the premises is a state of ease and satisfaction, and overlaps with peace to the extent that it also includes freedom from anxiety Privacy in the use of the premises is freedom from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in one s private life; the freedom to be left alone. It overlaps with peace to the extent that it includes freedom from unwarranted attendance or intrusion. 47. The word premises includes facilities, so includes the right to quiet enjoyment in relation to all aspects of the tenanted property, including sheds, garage, lawns, and gardens. 48. In considering the meaning of the word harassment and when that level may be reached the District Court in Macdonald v Dodds CIV preferred the Oxford English dictionary definition of harassment meaning trouble worry or distress or to wear out tire out or exhaust. 49. Ms Hazelwood outlined the following situations where she submitted there had been a breach; Mr Teh bought at least one unauthorised person to an inspection on 3 April; Mr Teh conducted the inspection and methamphetamine testing at a time Ms Hazelwood wasn t able to be on the premises despite requesting to be there; Trying to terminate her tenancy when he had no right and no evidence to support the statements; Refusing to allow her to have her own methamphetamine test completed after he refused to show the test results to her; Taking photographs/film of private chattels including furniture, plates and clothing; Constantly calling her on her mobile at work, texting and ing to negotiate an end to the tenancy before the tribunal hearing to consider that; Being intimidating and threatening. Inspection on 3 April On 1 April Mr Teh text Ms Hazelwood stating he had been made aware that neither she nor her grandchildren were living in the property and there were constantly 5 to 6 cars in the driveway plus an unauthorised installation of a permanent structure on the premises. He said that gave grounds to terminate the tenancy and he gave notice there would be an inspection at 12 noon the following Tuesday. He also indicated to Ms Hazelwood that he would be bringing an agent at the same time as he was planning on placing the property management in their hands. 51. Ms Hazelwood said that she was in agreement with an inspection and meth test and an agent being present but that she wanted to be at the premises when it

9 was done. She said she had asked Mr Teh at the commencement of the tenancy if the home had been tested for methamphetamine and he said it hadn t but he had no reason to suspect it would be contaminated. 52. At the time of the inspection Ms Kite was at the premises with one of her children. Ms Hazelwood was at work. She gave evidence Mr Teh arrived with an agent from Harcourts together with the drug tester. She let them into the property as she presumed that her mother had approved it. 53. While Ms Kite had no problems with the actions of the drug tester she was extremely upset with Mr Teh s conduct during the inspection. He began filming in the shed and was questioning why there was so much furniture in there and told her she couldn t live in the shed. 54. Mr Teh continued to film throughout the property including taking photographs of their personal possessions and film of clothing in her and her mother s wardrobes and bedding, including in her eight-year-old daughter s bedroom. 55. Ms Kite became very upset and called her mother-in-law, Ms Murphy, to ask if he could do this and she also asked the Harcourt s agent why he was taking pictures of their clothes. The Harcourt s agent went over and asked him to stop. 56. Ms Kite then moved outside while Mr Teh continued on inside the house. The Harcourts agent left and as she did so another agent from Lodge arrived and he said she would be looking through the house. Ms Kite said she objected to this but she was told by Mr Teh that she was not on the tenancy agreement so didn t have a say. 57. After showing the Lodge agent through the house both Mr Teh and the agent left. 58. Ms Murphy gave evidence about the discussion she had with Ms Kite on that day and it reflected the evidence that Ms Kite had given. 59. Mr Teh responded that the reason he had undertaken the inspection was because he believed Ms Hazlewood and the grandchildren didn t reside at the property and he was looking for evidence of this. For that reason, he took photographs of the furniture and the bedrooms together with clothing in various wardrobes. He was also looking for evidence of the children residing there such as school uniforms, schoolbooks or study desks. He also stated he also took photos of the clothing as an example of the uncleanliness in the property. 60. The reason Mr Teh said he had to undertake a methamphetamine test was he had taken out landlord insurance and was required to have a baseline test. 61. I am not entirely satisfied that the motivation for taking the meth test meets the standard for when landlords are permitted to take such a test, however in this case I find Ms Hazelwood did consent to this and it was of interest to her as well. It is not unreasonable that testing such as this takes place when a tenant is not present providing consent for the test has been given

10 62. I find that Mr Teh did however interfere with the reasonable comfort, peace or privacy of Ms Hazelwood and the other occupants in his conduct during the inspection. Clearly a tenant must allow a landlord to inspect the property in accordance with their rights under section 48 Residential Tenancies Act and a landlord has an obligation to meet to ensure that the property is not been damaged and there are no health and safety requirements that need to be met. There is a line however that can be crossed which amounts to interference with reasonable peace and comfort. 63. Mr Teh was relying on evidence given to him by a neighbour who said they hadn t seen the children around much or Ms Hazlewood around much and was effectively going on a fishing expedition. His photographing of personal items including clothing, bedding and furniture and looking for school related materials reaches the threshold to find he has breached this provision. Lamb v Rental Managers TT 15/00218.LH. 64. Further Ms Hazelwood was aware that one agent might be coming to the property with him however it is clear that a further agent also viewed the property unbeknownst to her. Disclosure of Methamphetamine test results 65. On 5 April Mr Teh received a copy of the indicative testing undertaken by Resultz. It noted that levels of contamination had been detected throughout the house and would require further analysis to understand what individual levels were present and how to remedy the property. Mr Teh did not take this advice but immediately ed Ms Hazelwood stating that the result of the test showed that the property was not safe for habitation because the drug level had exceeded the safe limit. He said they would need to leave. 66. This information was very concerning to Ms Hazelwood and she requested to see a copy of the report which Mr Teh refused as he said it was his report and he the one with the obligation to look after the health and safety of the property not Ms Hazelwood s. He denied her request to conduct her own test. 67. I find Mr Teh s actions in refusing to provide Ms Hazelwood with a copy of the report or at least the readings and findings and not allowing her to undertake her own test has interfered with her reasonable, peace, comfort and privacy. Mr Teh has submitted that the property is unsafe for habitation but has failed to do subsequent testing to confirm this and confirm what areas are in fact contaminated if at all but at the same time has left Ms Hazelwood with the view that the premises were not safe. 68. I find that the combination of Mr Teh s actions at the inspection establish there have been breaches under Section 38 and an award of compensation should be made. While there has been no tangible loss intangible loss should also be considered. This relates at one level to the extent to the intrusion into the tenant s

11 personal space, and at another level, to the degree of mental distress that results. 69. I find Mr Teh s conduct at the inspection and his refusal to disclose the findings of the meth test report left Ms Hazelwood feeling her personal space and those of the other occupants had been intruded into a large degree and she was also extremely anxious as to the safety or otherwise of the premises. Taking these factors into account I award the amount of $ in compensation. Mr Teh s conduct after receipt of the report 70. In the same on Mr Teh outlined that Ms Hazelwood had two options, one being she could give formal notice to end the fixed term tenancy early but that this would have to be before the tenancy Tribunal hearing that he had lodged and agreed to in writing. The other option he said was for them to go to the Tenancy Tribunal. 71. Over the next few days Mr Teh continued to text Ms Hazelwood asking her if she had made a decision about the options he had put and asking when they could talk. Ms Hazelwood consistently responded that the best way was to sort the matter out was at the Tribunal and that she didn t wish to discuss anything verbally and if Mr Teh had anything to say he could put it in an . Mr Teh responded he believed they should talk first and then if there was no agreement that will go to the Tribunal. My conclusion is that Mr Teh was endeavouring to bring an end to the tenancy prior to the Tenancy Tribunal considering whether he had a valid claim or not. 72. Ms Hazelwood found this constant communication trying to get her to agree to end the fixed term tenancy early to be very upsetting amounting to harassment. 73. Taking into account the definition outlined earlier of harassment being trouble, worry or distress usually in a repeated way, I find Mr Teh s conduct in this period of the tenancy amounted to harassment and as such is an unlawful act liable to an award of exemplary damages of $ Section 109 Residential Tenancies Act sets out the matters to be considered when considering an award of exemplary damages. The Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the unlawful act took place intentionally and that regard needed to be had to the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed and the public interest. 75. In this case I have no hesitation in concluding that Mr Teh did commit the unlawful act intentionally with a view to pre-empting any decision that may be made by the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate the tenancy or not. Mr Teh s insistence on trying to get an answer from Ms Hazelwood on this matter caused her great distress particularly when he attempted to still contact her and talk despite her earlier reply that she wished the Tenancy Tribunal to determine the

12 matter. It is in the interests of tenants and the public that landlords follow due process and comply with the Act in any steps they may be taking in regard to the tenancy. Taking these factors into account I award the amount of $ in exemplary damages. Equitable set-off 76. An equitable set-off may exist where a cross-claim can be set off against a claim for rent, even if it is unliquidated, provided that it arises under the lease itself or directly from the relation of landlord and tenant or out of an agreement for lease. The Court of Appeal in Hamilton Ice Arena Ltd v Perry Developments Ltd [2002] 1 NZLR 309 stated: a tenant has a right to set off against rent cross claims which arise not only out of the same contact as the claim but also where the cross-claim arises directly out of the relationship of landlord and tenant or out of an agreement for lease, or otherwise where there is a sufficiently close connection between the transaction giving rise to the cost claim for the equitable doctrine of set-off to apply. 77. The High Court in O Shea v Brown Auckland AP 110 PL 01, held that equitable set-off applied to residential tenancies and that the tenancy Tribunal must consider any equitable set-off before termination of a tenancy. 78. In this case the trust is owed rent arrears of $ Awards have been made in favour of Mrs Hazelwood totalling $650. Such an award extinguishes the claim for rent arrears a and hence termination it is therefore dismissed. 79. Robyn Lee Hazelwwod has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. J Robson 27 July

13 Please read carefully: SHOULD YOU REQUIRE ANY HELP OR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS MATTER PLEASE CONTACT TENANCY SERVICES MEHEMA HE PĀTAI TĀU E PĀ ANA KI TENEI TAKE, PĀTAI ATU KI TE TARI TENANCY SERVICES AFAI E TE MANA OMIA SE FESOASOANI E UIGA I LENEI MATAUPU FA AMOLEMOLE IA FA AFESO OTAI I LOA LE OFISA O LE TENANCY SERVICES Rehearings: You may make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for a rehearing. Such an application must be made within five working days of the order and must be lodged at the Court where the dispute was heard. The only ground for a rehearing of an application is that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. Being unhappy or dissatisfied with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing. (See Right of Appeal below). Right of Appeal: If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, you may appeal to the District Court. You only have 10 working days after the date of the decision to lodge a notice of appeal. However, you may not appeal to the District Court: 1. Against an interim order made by the Tribunal. 2. Against an order, or the failure to make an order, for the payment of money where the amount that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1, Against a work order, or the failure to make a work order, where the value of the work that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000. There is a $ filing fee payable at the time of filing the appeal. Enforcement: Where the Tribunal made an order that needs to be enforced then the party seeking enforcement should contact the Collections Office of the District Court on or go to for forms and information. Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc: Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property