What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5115488 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5115488?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5115488?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5115488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11986734-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5115488 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5115488?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5115488?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5115488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11986734-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5115488 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person in the Tauranga Registry.

The landlord has applied for orders to remedy the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement which had a no-pet clause.

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for discrimination and a breach of quiet enjoyment.

The tenant seeks an order against the property management company. In this decision I will refer to the property management company as “the property manager” and the landlord owner as “the landlord”. A recent District Court decision found a tenant is entitled to seek orders against the property manager. 1

The tenancy commenced on 14 August 2024 and is a fixed term tenancy with a contractual end date of 13 August 2025 Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 2 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Landlord’s claim

On 21 March 2025 I adjourned the landlord’s claim to allow the tenant to sign the necessary documents to obtain the landlord’s consent to having her dog remain at the premises. 1 See Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642 at [29 – [33] 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02,

The tenant did not provide the fully executed documents to the property manager before the hearing, therefore time was spent during the second hearing to allow the tenant to arrange for the documents to be properly executed.

Following the pet agreement and guarantor agreement being fully executed at the hearing the landlord has withdrawn their application.

Accordingly, the landlord’s application to remedy a breach is dismissed. Tenant’s claims Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenant claims the property manager has breached her quiet enjoyment to a level that amounts to harassment.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 3

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. 4

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. 5 3 See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. 5 See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds 6 , considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder 7 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”

The tenant says the property manager has breached their quiet enjoyment and I will deal with each complaint in turn. Breach of privacy

The tenant says the property manager breached her privacy. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine breaches of the Privacy Act 2000, but I will address this concern in the context of a claim of breach of quiet enjoyment. 6 MacDonald v Dodds CIV-2009-019-1524, (District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010 7 Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987.

The tenant says the property manager breached her privacy by providing her phone number to the landlord without her consent.

The tenant says the landlord used her phone number to send a text message to her on 2 December 2025, which she says was unexpected. In the text message the landlord advises the tenant he does not agree to her having a dog on the property.

The property manager called two witnesses to give evidence on this issue. They are the landlord’s parents and I will refer to them as Mr N and Ms D. Both Mr N and Ms D confirmed the tenant asked Mr N to arrange for the landlord to get in touch with her about her dog being at the property. Given both Mr N and Ms D gave the same evidence on this point, I find it likely that the tenant did ask Mr N to arrange for the landlord to get in touch with her about her dog and Mr N did as the tenant asked. I therefore do not consider there has been any act by the property manager or landlord in this regard that would amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment towards the tenant. Meeting at office – 11 December 2025

The tenant also raised a concern about her treatment from the property manager. The tenant provided audio of a meeting between her and the property manager on 11 December 2025.

The context of this meeting is that the tenant arrived at the office to confront the property manager about how the landlord obtained her phone number.

Within the tense discussion the property manager called the tenant “a piece of work”. I understand the tenant said to the property manager " I hope all your teeth fall out" as she left. The tenant attended at the office without a prior appointment and was asked to leave. I do not consider this exchange amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises or harassment. Denial of informal resolution

The tenant considers the property manager did not engage with her informally to resolve both the dispute about the dog and apologise to her for how they communicated to her. The property manager provided evidence of the communication with the tenant which shows their attempts to resolve both the tenants’ breaches and the communication issues. I do not consider an unwillingness to engage in an informal dispute resolution process would amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment by the property manager. Interference with peace and privacy – lawnmowing.

The tenant says the property manager breached her peace and privacy by the lawnmower man, Mr N, attending at the property once a week to mow the lawns. The property manager say they have put in place a more suitable regime for the lawnmowing to suit the tenant.

The tenant was aware at the commencement of the tenancy that the lawns were to be mown once a week. I consider the tenant only raised a grievance about this when Mr N alerted the landlord to the tenant’s dog being at the property. Prior to this she had not raised a concern. In addition, I do not consider the lawn’s being mowed at a reasonable time of day once a week, as agreed at the commencement of the tenancy, amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Unfair breach notices

The tenant says she was served with 14-day notices for water rates and having a dog at the premises on the same day which is a breach of her quiet enjoyment. A 14-day notice in respect of the dog was served on the tenant on 4 December 2025. The 14-day notice in respect of the water rates was served on the tenant on 19 December 2025. The notices were properly served in respect of breaches of the tenant’s obligations. I do not consider the serving of these two 14-day breach notices amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment or harassment. Improper disclosure of landlord’s phone number.

The tenant says the property manager “improperly” provided her with the landlord’s phone number, by providing her with the water rates notice with his phone number on it. I do not consider this to be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Improper contact with guarantor

The tenant says the property manager contacted her guarantor as he had not signed the guarantor agreement. The tenant was aggrieved by this.

The tenant acknowledges that she was offered this tenancy on the basis she had a guarantor and she arranged for the guarantor to sign the guarantor agreement at the hearing. I do not consider the communication between the property manager and guarantor could amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. The landlord was entitled to arrange for the guarantor agreement to be properly signed. Outcome – breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.

I find the property manager has not committed an unlawful act. The tenant’s claim for a breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Discrimination

The tenant claims that the property manager discriminated against her.

A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. 8

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 9 8 See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant says the discrimination towards her relates to the property manager using the term “handicapped”. The property manager says the term was used to express an understanding of the tenant’s situation with her son.

The RTA provides that discrimination is an unlawful act if that discrimination occurs in relation to a grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy. The landlord agreed to vary the tenancy to allow the tenant to have her dog remain at the property. It therefore cannot be said that the tenant has been treated unfairly in relation to a variation. It seems to me to be the contrary, that the landlord has treated the tenant fairly, having regards to the desire to ensure the tenant has the benefit of the fixed term tenancy which assures the tenant that she has stability in her accommodation until the end of the fixed term.

The tenant’s application in respect of discrimination is dismissed. Suppression

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 10

The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 11

The landlord sought name suppression and as they have had substantial success in this matter and in defending the tenant’s claim, I make an order suppressing the property manager and landlord’s name. 9 See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 10 See Section 95 A (1) of the RTA. 11 See section 95 A (4) of the RTA.

The tenant sought name suppression, however as the tenant has been unsuccessful with her claim, I decline to grant name suppression to the tenant.

Reasons