What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4811397?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ respective applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4811397?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4811397?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4811397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10209746-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4811397?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ respective applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4811397?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4811397?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4811397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10209746-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

107A Firth Street, Matamata, Matamata 3400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4811397 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

107A Firth Street, Matamata, Matamata 3400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4811397 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Order

The parties’ respective applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlords have applied for compensation, effectively on the basis of the Tenant’s alleged failure to provide entry and in connection with the Landlord’s time and efforts in dealing with the Tenant’s alleged anti-social behaviour. The Landlord’s also claim the Tenant has used tape on a gate which has left behind a sticky residue which can only be removed with a particular solvent.
The Tenant has applied as follows: a. Unlawful entry by landlords 27/1 approx. 9.45am. b. Unlawful entry by Landlords 27/1 at approx. 2.45pm. c. Unlawful entry by landlords 13/2 at approx. 10.25am. d. Landlord & or Agent failed to provide copy of signed Tenancy Agreement and entry check lists (181 pages). e. Landlord & or Agent failed to lodge bond within 23 days. f. Interference with quiet enjoyment by landlord. g. Interference of privacy by having camera pointed directly toward our gate. h. Landlord provoking altercation whilst recording without knowledge or consent on 27/1. i. Making false statements to police resulting in police visiting us. j. Retaliatory notice - Anti-social behaviour notices x 3 seen as retaliatory.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The sticky residue left behind by tape stuck to the gate. The Landlords have proven damage due to tape residue, aligning with the provisions under section 49B RTA regarding damage liability.
I find the Tenants would not have required the tape if the gate was properly secure and working to begin with. I decline their claim for compensation for solvent. Have the Landlords failed to maintain the premises by not reinstating the gate to a fully motorised, automated state?
Brigette Atkinson and Allister Moller claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having reviewed all the evidence, I am unable to positively confirm that the gate’s automation was a part of the original rental agreement, or a condition verbally agreed upon by both parties. The Landlord’s failure to maintain the gate in a fully automated state does not constitute a breach of their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

Have the Landlord unlawfully entered the premises?

Brigette Atkinson and Allister Moller claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice as follows: a. Unlawful entry by landlords 27/1 approx. 9.45am. b. Unlawful entry by Landlords 27/1 at approx. 2.45pm. c. Unlawful entry by landlords 13/2 at approx. 10.25am.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Landlord must provide a date, and enter between the hours of 8am and 7pm, but need not provide an exact time, or knock on the door to let a Tenant know they are there, though this would be prudent in most cases.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence provided does not conclusively support the tenant's claim of unlawful entry by the landlords on the specified dates. Notifications, albeit ambiguous, were issued, and no intentional disregard for legal processes was evident.
The Landlords provided evidence of texts and verbal communications indicating their intentions to enter the property for maintenance purposes. While the notifications did not specify exact times, they did communicate the intent and general timing (e.g., "on Saturday"), which is consistent with the requirements under section 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Act allows landlords to enter the premises for repairs and maintenance with notice given no less than 48 hours and no more than 14 days in advance.
The evidence showed some ambiguity in the communications regarding the exact timing and scope of the intended maintenance work. For instance, the discussions on 25 January indicated a tentative plan which was not conclusively agreed upon or clearly communicated thereafter. However, the Landlords reasonably believed they had conveyed their plans sufficiently, as evidenced by their subsequent actions and the initial notification.
The Tenants reactions to the entry on the specified dates suggest a misunderstanding or miscommunication rather than clear evidence of unlawful entry. The Tenants expressed surprise and objection during the entries, which could be attributed to the ambiguous nature of the prior notifications rather than a total absence of notice.
The same misunderstanding or miscommunication occurred in regard to the alleged unlawful entry on 13 February 2024. The Landlords believed they were acting in accordance with the Tenants’ instructions to come on a weekday.
There was no conclusive evidence to suggest that the landlords intentionally disregarded the legal requirements for entering the property. The Landlords’ actions appeared to be based on a belief that they had provided adequate notice, albeit not perfectly clear or effectively communicated. Their intent seemed focused on maintaining the property rather than undermining the Tenants’ rights.
The ambiguity in the notification, while not ideal, did not amount to a clear violation of the Act, as the intent to notify and the act of notification were both present, even if not executed with complete clarity.
Given these considerations, the Tribunal finds that while the notification process could have been better managed by the Landlords to avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity, the evidence does not conclusively support a finding of unlawful entry as claimed by the Tenants. The Landlords attempted to adhere to the legal requirements, and there was no evidence of an intentional or reckless disregard for the Tenants’ rights under the Act.

Have the Landlords harassed the Tenants?

Brigette Atkinson and Allister Moller claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The Tenants and the Landlord have been in conflict for some time, but their conduct towards each other in certain instances has been deplorable and unnecessarily escalatory.
The transcripts of audio recordings, provided by the Landlord, reveal a series of heated exchanges between both parties. For instance, during maintenance on 13 February 2024, there are numerous instances where both the Landlords and the Tenant (Allister Moller) engage in name-calling and provocative language. The Landlords are recorded using terms like "you’re just a dick" and the tenant retorting with phrases like "fuck off before you do it."
On the afternoon of 27 January, during a highly charged altercation concerning the gate maintenance, both parties engaged in a series of heated exchanges that exemplified mutually unacceptable and provocative speech. Here are the direct quotes that highlight this: a. Allister (Tenant): "What are you fucking doing, what are you doing?" "You’re trying to be the landlord could you get off the property please, could you leave the property" "No you won’t get it, it is not your property to fix it" "Go away" "You’ve fucked up my whole day" "You brainless redneck ignorant bitch" "Yeah well he's got more brains than fucking you" (referring to the dog) "Let’s hope your kids don’t turn out the same" "Ya racist slag" "You want me to play it to you, it was recorded you dummy, what a proper slag" "The only illegal drugs going on is you guys" b. Dee (Landlord) "We are not going to put our gate at risk we are halfway through a job" "No you won’t get it, it is not your property to fix it" "Call the police if that’s how you want to behave with this situation" "Read the letter ok guys" "Oh my gosh you have got serious anger issues Allister" "How dare you speak to me that way, how dare you call me a redneck" "Why am I a redneck, why am I racist" "You’re insane, I think you’re taking clearly too much medication" "Allister has got serious mental issues and is clearly taking too many meds, clearly. You’ve got a violence problem" c. Rick (Landlord) "Let me do it up then" (trying to fix the gate despite protests) "You can fuck off with your attitude" (to Allister throwing the letter) "You’re terrible" "Fuck off before I fucking throttle you, fuck off before I fucking club you with that" (referring to Allister’s fist gesture) "What a rude cunt, we’re your landlords for fucking sakes" "Oh you fuckwit, fuck off" d. Bridgette (Tenant) "Hey at the moment you’re in breach of the tenancy act you haven’t given us notice that you were going to do this" "No you haven’t, no but you said maybe you didn’t settle anything back" "I want this gate compliant ok"
This exchange underscores a breakdown in communication and decorum between the parties, characterised by insults, accusations, and a profound lack of respect that escalated the conflict beyond a simple dispute over property maintenance.
The evidence does not show a one-sided pattern of harassment but rather indicates mutual provocation. For example, the Tenant is noted to have physically thrown objects and slammed the gate on 27 January, though he denied doing both. It is not hard to conceive of him doing these things, given the outpouring of malice from his mouth.
Many of the contentious interactions occurred within the context of disputed property entries for maintenance purposes. While the Landlords’ entry into the property may have been contentious and led to confrontations, the interactions that occurred do not solely constitute harassment but rather a mutual escalation of conflict during specific incidents.
Harassment typically involves a sustained or systematic pattern of behaviour. The evidence provided shows isolated incidents tied to specific disputes over property maintenance and entries, rather than a continuous or unprovoked attempt to distress or trouble the Tenants. The maintenance is undertaken at the request of the Tenants in all cases.
Given this analysis, the Tribunal concludes that the Tenants’ claims of harassment by the landlords are not fully supported by the evidence presented. While the interactions between the parties were undoubtedly heated and involved inappropriate behaviour, the nature of these exchanges does not meet the threshold for legal harassment under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Both parties exhibited provocative behaviour that contributed to the altercations on 27 January and 13 February, indicating a bilateral escalation rather than targeted harassment by the landlords.

Did the Landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Brigette Atkinson and Allister Moller claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The real estate agent attended and acknowledged the non-lodgement of the bond was the failure of the agency. I have not awarded any exemplary damages, not having found any intentional, unlawful act by the Landlords.

Did the Landlords give retaliatory notice to end the tenancy?

The Tenant claims the Landlords notices under s 55A were retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 54 applies to any notice given pursuant to s 51, which does not include s 55A notices.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the Tenant unlawfully prevent the Landlord from entering the premises?

Deanne Lawrence, Ricky Walker and Link Realty Limited - Lj Hooker Matamata Sarah White-Parsons claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The notices given by the landlord regarding maintenance were somewhat ambiguous. For instance, the text on 24 January 2024 communicated the intention to enter the property on 27 January 2024 but did not specify a time, only the intent to perform maintenance "on Saturday."
A meeting on 25 January added complexity; the Tenant suggested that the Landlord wait for further input before proceeding with concreting the gate post.
The Tenant expected further discussions which were not conclusively denied or affirmed by the landlord in a subsequent, clear communication.
Given the Tenants’ expressed concerns and the ongoing discussions about the gate’s automation and maintenance approach, a clearer notice reiterating or specifying the intent to proceed with maintenance on 27 January might have been warranted. The absence of such definitive communication contributed to the Tenants’ confusion and defensive response.
On the morning of 27 January, the Tenant (Allister Moller) reacted to the unexpected presence of the landlord performing maintenance by refusing entry.
This response can be seen, at least in part, to be a consequence of the ambiguity in the Landlord’s communications.
The Tenant’s actions to block maintenance efforts on the specified dates stemmed from a perceived infringement on their right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property, principles upheld by sections 38 and 48 of the Act.
Given the unclear communication, these actions were not considered unlawful but rather protective responses to unexpected disturbances.
While the Tenant’s actions to prevent maintenance were disruptive, they were not unlawful, largely due to the Landlord’s failure to provide clear, timely, and unambiguous communication as required by law.
This lack of clarity led the Tenants to reasonably believe that their rights to privacy and prior notice were being violated, thus justifying their defensive measures under the circumstances described.
I decline to award name suppression given neither party has succeeded in their claims.

Order

The parties’ respective applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlords have applied for compensation, effectively on the basis of the Tenant’s alleged failure to provide entry and in connection with the Landlord’s time and efforts in dealing with the Tenant’s alleged anti-social behaviour. The Landlord’s also claim the Tenant has used tape on a gate which has left behind a sticky residue which can only be removed with a particular solvent.
The Tenant has applied as follows: a. Unlawful entry by landlords 27/1 approx. 9.45am. b. Unlawful entry by Landlords 27/1 at approx. 2.45pm. c. Unlawful entry by landlords 13/2 at approx. 10.25am. d. Landlord & or Agent failed to provide copy of signed Tenancy Agreement and entry check lists (181 pages). e. Landlord & or Agent failed to lodge bond within 23 days. f. Interference with quiet enjoyment by landlord. g. Interference of privacy by having camera pointed directly toward our gate. h. Landlord provoking altercation whilst recording without knowledge or consent on 27/1. i. Making false statements to police resulting in police visiting us. j. Retaliatory notice - Anti-social behaviour notices x 3 seen as retaliatory.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The sticky residue left behind by tape stuck to the gate. The Landlords have proven damage due to tape residue, aligning with the provisions under section 49B RTA regarding damage liability.
I find the Tenants would not have required the tape if the gate was properly secure and working to begin with. I decline their claim for compensation for solvent. Have the Landlords failed to maintain the premises by not reinstating the gate to a fully motorised, automated state?
Brigette Atkinson and Allister Moller claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having reviewed all the evidence, I am unable to positively confirm that the gate’s automation was a part of the original rental agreement, or a condition verbally agreed upon by both parties. The Landlord’s failure to maintain the gate in a fully automated state does not constitute a breach of their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

Have the Landlord unlawfully entered the premises?

Brigette Atkinson and Allister Moller claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice as follows: a. Unlawful entry by landlords 27/1 approx. 9.45am. b. Unlawful entry by Landlords 27/1 at approx. 2.45pm. c. Unlawful entry by landlords 13/2 at approx. 10.25am.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Landlord must provide a date, and enter between the hours of 8am and 7pm, but need not provide an exact time, or knock on the door to let a Tenant know they are there, though this would be prudent in most cases.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence provided does not conclusively support the tenant's claim of unlawful entry by the landlords on the specified dates. Notifications, albeit ambiguous, were issued, and no intentional disregard for legal processes was evident.
The Landlords provided evidence of texts and verbal communications indicating their intentions to enter the property for maintenance purposes. While the notifications did not specify exact times, they did communicate the intent and general timing (e.g., "on Saturday"), which is consistent with the requirements under section 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Act allows landlords to enter the premises for repairs and maintenance with notice given no less than 48 hours and no more than 14 days in advance.
The evidence showed some ambiguity in the communications regarding the exact timing and scope of the intended maintenance work. For instance, the discussions on 25 January indicated a tentative plan which was not conclusively agreed upon or clearly communicated thereafter. However, the Landlords reasonably believed they had conveyed their plans sufficiently, as evidenced by their subsequent actions and the initial notification.
The Tenants reactions to the entry on the specified dates suggest a misunderstanding or miscommunication rather than clear evidence of unlawful entry. The Tenants expressed surprise and objection during the entries, which could be attributed to the ambiguous nature of the prior notifications rather than a total absence of notice.
The same misunderstanding or miscommunication occurred in regard to the alleged unlawful entry on 13 February 2024. The Landlords believed they were acting in accordance with the Tenants’ instructions to come on a weekday.
There was no conclusive evidence to suggest that the landlords intentionally disregarded the legal requirements for entering the property. The Landlords’ actions appeared to be based on a belief that they had provided adequate notice, albeit not perfectly clear or effectively communicated. Their intent seemed focused on maintaining the property rather than undermining the Tenants’ rights.
The ambiguity in the notification, while not ideal, did not amount to a clear violation of the Act, as the intent to notify and the act of notification were both present, even if not executed with complete clarity.
Given these considerations, the Tribunal finds that while the notification process could have been better managed by the Landlords to avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity, the evidence does not conclusively support a finding of unlawful entry as claimed by the Tenants. The Landlords attempted to adhere to the legal requirements, and there was no evidence of an intentional or reckless disregard for the Tenants’ rights under the Act.

Have the Landlords harassed the Tenants?

Brigette Atkinson and Allister Moller claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The Tenants and the Landlord have been in conflict for some time, but their conduct towards each other in certain instances has been deplorable and unnecessarily escalatory.
The transcripts of audio recordings, provided by the Landlord, reveal a series of heated exchanges between both parties. For instance, during maintenance on 13 February 2024, there are numerous instances where both the Landlords and the Tenant (Allister Moller) engage in name-calling and provocative language. The Landlords are recorded using terms like "you’re just a dick" and the tenant retorting with phrases like "fuck off before you do it."
On the afternoon of 27 January, during a highly charged altercation concerning the gate maintenance, both parties engaged in a series of heated exchanges that exemplified mutually unacceptable and provocative speech. Here are the direct quotes that highlight this: a. Allister (Tenant): "What are you fucking doing, what are you doing?" "You’re trying to be the landlord could you get off the property please, could you leave the property" "No you won’t get it, it is not your property to fix it" "Go away" "You’ve fucked up my whole day" "You brainless redneck ignorant bitch" "Yeah well he's got more brains than fucking you" (referring to the dog) "Let’s hope your kids don’t turn out the same" "Ya racist slag" "You want me to play it to you, it was recorded you dummy, what a proper slag" "The only illegal drugs going on is you guys" b. Dee (Landlord) "We are not going to put our gate at risk we are halfway through a job" "No you won’t get it, it is not your property to fix it" "Call the police if that’s how you want to behave with this situation" "Read the letter ok guys" "Oh my gosh you have got serious anger issues Allister" "How dare you speak to me that way, how dare you call me a redneck" "Why am I a redneck, why am I racist" "You’re insane, I think you’re taking clearly too much medication" "Allister has got serious mental issues and is clearly taking too many meds, clearly. You’ve got a violence problem" c. Rick (Landlord) "Let me do it up then" (trying to fix the gate despite protests) "You can fuck off with your attitude" (to Allister throwing the letter) "You’re terrible" "Fuck off before I fucking throttle you, fuck off before I fucking club you with that" (referring to Allister’s fist gesture) "What a rude cunt, we’re your landlords for fucking sakes" "Oh you fuckwit, fuck off" d. Bridgette (Tenant) "Hey at the moment you’re in breach of the tenancy act you haven’t given us notice that you were going to do this" "No you haven’t, no but you said maybe you didn’t settle anything back" "I want this gate compliant ok"
This exchange underscores a breakdown in communication and decorum between the parties, characterised by insults, accusations, and a profound lack of respect that escalated the conflict beyond a simple dispute over property maintenance.
The evidence does not show a one-sided pattern of harassment but rather indicates mutual provocation. For example, the Tenant is noted to have physically thrown objects and slammed the gate on 27 January, though he denied doing both. It is not hard to conceive of him doing these things, given the outpouring of malice from his mouth.
Many of the contentious interactions occurred within the context of disputed property entries for maintenance purposes. While the Landlords’ entry into the property may have been contentious and led to confrontations, the interactions that occurred do not solely constitute harassment but rather a mutual escalation of conflict during specific incidents.
Harassment typically involves a sustained or systematic pattern of behaviour. The evidence provided shows isolated incidents tied to specific disputes over property maintenance and entries, rather than a continuous or unprovoked attempt to distress or trouble the Tenants. The maintenance is undertaken at the request of the Tenants in all cases.
Given this analysis, the Tribunal concludes that the Tenants’ claims of harassment by the landlords are not fully supported by the evidence presented. While the interactions between the parties were undoubtedly heated and involved inappropriate behaviour, the nature of these exchanges does not meet the threshold for legal harassment under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Both parties exhibited provocative behaviour that contributed to the altercations on 27 January and 13 February, indicating a bilateral escalation rather than targeted harassment by the landlords.

Did the Landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Brigette Atkinson and Allister Moller claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The real estate agent attended and acknowledged the non-lodgement of the bond was the failure of the agency. I have not awarded any exemplary damages, not having found any intentional, unlawful act by the Landlords.

Did the Landlords give retaliatory notice to end the tenancy?

The Tenant claims the Landlords notices under s 55A were retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 54 applies to any notice given pursuant to s 51, which does not include s 55A notices.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the Tenant unlawfully prevent the Landlord from entering the premises?

Deanne Lawrence, Ricky Walker and Link Realty Limited - Lj Hooker Matamata Sarah White-Parsons claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The notices given by the landlord regarding maintenance were somewhat ambiguous. For instance, the text on 24 January 2024 communicated the intention to enter the property on 27 January 2024 but did not specify a time, only the intent to perform maintenance "on Saturday."
A meeting on 25 January added complexity; the Tenant suggested that the Landlord wait for further input before proceeding with concreting the gate post.
The Tenant expected further discussions which were not conclusively denied or affirmed by the landlord in a subsequent, clear communication.
Given the Tenants’ expressed concerns and the ongoing discussions about the gate’s automation and maintenance approach, a clearer notice reiterating or specifying the intent to proceed with maintenance on 27 January might have been warranted. The absence of such definitive communication contributed to the Tenants’ confusion and defensive response.
On the morning of 27 January, the Tenant (Allister Moller) reacted to the unexpected presence of the landlord performing maintenance by refusing entry.
This response can be seen, at least in part, to be a consequence of the ambiguity in the Landlord’s communications.
The Tenant’s actions to block maintenance efforts on the specified dates stemmed from a perceived infringement on their right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property, principles upheld by sections 38 and 48 of the Act.
Given the unclear communication, these actions were not considered unlawful but rather protective responses to unexpected disturbances.
While the Tenant’s actions to prevent maintenance were disruptive, they were not unlawful, largely due to the Landlord’s failure to provide clear, timely, and unambiguous communication as required by law.
This lack of clarity led the Tenants to reasonably believe that their rights to privacy and prior notice were being violated, thus justifying their defensive measures under the circumstances described.
I decline to award name suppression given neither party has succeeded in their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4811397 — 14-day notice at 107A Firth Street, Matamata, Matamata 3400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4811397 — 14-day notice at 107A Firth Street, Matamata, Matamata 3400

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Have the Landlord unlawfully entered the premises?

Have the Landlords harassed the Tenants?

Did the Landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the Landlords give retaliatory notice to end the tenancy?

Did the Tenant unlawfully prevent the Landlord from entering the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Have the Landlord unlawfully entered the premises?

Have the Landlords harassed the Tenants?

Did the Landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the Landlords give retaliatory notice to end the tenancy?

Did the Tenant unlawfully prevent the Landlord from entering the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions