What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118076 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to immediately pay [The applicant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5118076?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118076?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12041466-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118076 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to immediately pay [The applicant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5118076?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118076?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12041466-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118076 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118076 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to immediately pay [The applicant/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held at Tauranga District Court.
The tenant claims the landlord has reached s38(2)of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in circumstances that amount to harassment.
Section 38(2) provides that a 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.
Section 38(3) provides that contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is an unlawful act which may attract an award of up to $3,000.00 in exemplary damages.
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 background to this claim is that the applicant is living, with her family, in a complex of approximately 40 large homes managed by Kainga Ora (KO). It is high density living although each of the homes are stand alone.
It seems that there were issues between neighbours for quite some time. The tenant has provided the Tribunal with a timeline of events which starts on 29 September 2024 and ends on 26 March 2025.
The tenant claims that KO treated her unfairly and did not respond adequately to the complaints that she made during this period, so much so that this amounted to harassment as defined in paragraph 5 above.
I do not intend to go into each of the tenant’s complaints in detail, but the following is a summary of my findings. Breach notices
I am not upholding the tenant’s complaints that she was the only person who was given breach notices by KO, and that KO did not give breach notices to all of the tenants involved in the incidents on 2 January 2025 and 3 February 2025.
I accept the evidence that a number of tenants have been breached by KO and so she was not alone in being breached. Indeed I saw numerous breach notices meted out to other tenants, more than the tenant herself received.
I also accept that KO has taken reasonable steps in relation to the 2 January and 3 February incidents and breached those who they thought were largely responsible. That is their call to make and I do not accept that their judgment in this regard meant that the applicant was treated unfairly or that KO did not respond to the incidents appropriately.
I also consider KO’s response to the incidents was reasonable at this time because they met with the tenant on 13 February 2025 to discuss her concerns, and a meeting with KO’s Regional Director was also arranged.
I note that KO stated that they had not breached one tenant in relation to the 3 February incident because they had already given that person a s55A (anti social behaviour) notice for an incident on 26 January and believed that they were not entitled to give the tenant another one so soon. This is perhaps KO’s policy but in any case I do not consider the failure to breach this tenant for the 3 February incident amounted to unfairness towards the tenant, or an inadequate response. Blocking of case manager’s number
The applicant states that her case manager blocked her number from 11 November – 13 November 2024, and from 3 December 2024 – 21 January 2025. She says that this showed that she was being negatively singled out by KO and meant that there was an inadequate response to her complaints.
I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim. I do so because I accept the case manager’s evidence that she blocked the tenant’s number because she was concerned and overwhelmed with the volume of material coming through in messages and she wanted to have the more formal record achieved by the tenant calling the 0800 number (in which case her call was recorded) or by the tenant using the online forum.
I accept that she advised the tenant to communicate in either of those two ways. Negative comments
The tenant claims that she was treated unfairly by her case manager who, she says, made a disparaging and negative comment about her to a new tenant. The new tenant advised the applicant of this in a message.
The case manager denies that she said it.
As the applicant, the tenant is required to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. That means that in this instance she is required to show that more likely than not, the case manager made the comment.
In a he said/she said situation such as this, to prove a claim to the required standard, the applicant would be required to provide some kind of objective evidence to support her view.
In the absence of such evidence this part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant also claims that the case manager treated her unfairly because while advising her not to call other people names, the case manager herself called her names by telling her not to be a “Postman Pat” and that she is not an “Aunty”.
Again, I am dismissing this part of the claim. Those comments were made in the context of two letters that the tenant had hand delivered to all the houses in the complex commenting negatively on the parents’ parenting skills, and on their behaviour and offering advice on how to improve.
Not unreasonably, the parents had complained to KO about these letters and I consider the case manager’s reference to “Postman Pat” and “Aunty” were gentle ways of telling the tenant to stop. November 2024
On 20 and 22 November the applicant sent screen shots of trespass orders that she had made against other tenants to her case manager. She advised KO that they had been thrown back into her garden. Included in the email of 22 November were a lot of other complaints, including reference to an incident in April 2024.
On 22 November the case manager asked the tenant to stop sending her irrelevant emails.
On 26 November 2024 the tenant emailed the case manager complaining about noise coming from another tenancy, and another tenant/s calling out to her husband asking him to come out for a fight, and another tenant swearing at her.
On 27 November 2024 the applicant messaged the case manager again about invitations to her husband to go outside and fight.
The case manager advised that she would raise these matters with the Police and get back to her. The tenant then responded, questioning whether the case manager was taking these issues seriously.
On 28 November 2024 the tenant was advised that the noise complaint was received and would be followed up.
In this regard only, do I find that KO has committed an unlawful act. Complaints were made, and not followed up, and the case manager did not specify which part of the email of 22 November 2024 was irrelevant, thereby giving the tenant the impression that all of the information she was providing was irrelevant.
I consider that this was unfair to the tenant, was an inadequate and damaging response and therefore caused her “worry and distress”.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am making a nominal award of $500.00 in exemplary damages for this breach. I have taken into account the overwhelming nature of communications going to the case manager, the whirly-gig of tenants behaving poorly and the irrefutable evidence that the applicant herself engaged in aggressive and unhelpful behaviour.
Having seen and heard the evidence I consider that KO and the case manager herself did a creditable job of what were ongoing difficult, volatile, and sometimes criminal, behaviour.
Having said that, however, there was the November lapse which needs to be acknowledged. I accept that the tenant felt unheard and isolated as a result of the case manager’s management of her complaints at this time – hence the award of exemplary damages.
Further to this, there is significant public interest in landlord’s abiding by their obligations and, especially in multi-dwelling situations, that they are seen to be acting even-handedly as between the tenants and managing issues promptly.
As well as awarding exemplary damages, I am ordering the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant because the tenant has partly succeeded with their claim.
At the end of the hearing the tenant applied to have their name suppressed. I am allowing that application because I accept that the tenant has gone to considerable lengths to keep her family ‘safe’ and that their privacy is very important to her. I also note that KO supported this application.
I have also suppressed the tenancy address because I do not want there to be any stigma attached to this housing complex, particularly as two families have now been relocated and both parties say that there are no further issues. C ter Haar 27 June 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118076 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is to immediately pay [The applicant/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held at Tauranga District Court.
The tenant claims the landlord has reached s38(2)of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in circumstances that amount to harassment.
Section 38(2) provides that a 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.
Section 38(3) provides that contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is an unlawful act which may attract an award of up to $3,000.00 in exemplary damages.
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 background to this claim is that the applicant is living, with her family, in a complex of approximately 40 large homes managed by Kainga Ora (KO). It is high density living although each of the homes are stand alone.
It seems that there were issues between neighbours for quite some time. The tenant has provided the Tribunal with a timeline of events which starts on 29 September 2024 and ends on 26 March 2025.
The tenant claims that KO treated her unfairly and did not respond adequately to the complaints that she made during this period, so much so that this amounted to harassment as defined in paragraph 5 above.
I do not intend to go into each of the tenant’s complaints in detail, but the following is a summary of my findings. Breach notices
I am not upholding the tenant’s complaints that she was the only person who was given breach notices by KO, and that KO did not give breach notices to all of the tenants involved in the incidents on 2 January 2025 and 3 February 2025.
I accept the evidence that a number of tenants have been breached by KO and so she was not alone in being breached. Indeed I saw numerous breach notices meted out to other tenants, more than the tenant herself received.
I also accept that KO has taken reasonable steps in relation to the 2 January and 3 February incidents and breached those who they thought were largely responsible. That is their call to make and I do not accept that their judgment in this regard meant that the applicant was treated unfairly or that KO did not respond to the incidents appropriately.
I also consider KO’s response to the incidents was reasonable at this time because they met with the tenant on 13 February 2025 to discuss her concerns, and a meeting with KO’s Regional Director was also arranged.
I note that KO stated that they had not breached one tenant in relation to the 3 February incident because they had already given that person a s55A (anti social behaviour) notice for an incident on 26 January and believed that they were not entitled to give the tenant another one so soon. This is perhaps KO’s policy but in any case I do not consider the failure to breach this tenant for the 3 February incident amounted to unfairness towards the tenant, or an inadequate response. Blocking of case manager’s number
The applicant states that her case manager blocked her number from 11 November – 13 November 2024, and from 3 December 2024 – 21 January 2025. She says that this showed that she was being negatively singled out by KO and meant that there was an inadequate response to her complaints.
I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim. I do so because I accept the case manager’s evidence that she blocked the tenant’s number because she was concerned and overwhelmed with the volume of material coming through in messages and she wanted to have the more formal record achieved by the tenant calling the 0800 number (in which case her call was recorded) or by the tenant using the online forum.
I accept that she advised the tenant to communicate in either of those two ways. Negative comments
The tenant claims that she was treated unfairly by her case manager who, she says, made a disparaging and negative comment about her to a new tenant. The new tenant advised the applicant of this in a message.
The case manager denies that she said it.
As the applicant, the tenant is required to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. That means that in this instance she is required to show that more likely than not, the case manager made the comment.
In a he said/she said situation such as this, to prove a claim to the required standard, the applicant would be required to provide some kind of objective evidence to support her view.
In the absence of such evidence this part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant also claims that the case manager treated her unfairly because while advising her not to call other people names, the case manager herself called her names by telling her not to be a “Postman Pat” and that she is not an “Aunty”.
Again, I am dismissing this part of the claim. Those comments were made in the context of two letters that the tenant had hand delivered to all the houses in the complex commenting negatively on the parents’ parenting skills, and on their behaviour and offering advice on how to improve.
Not unreasonably, the parents had complained to KO about these letters and I consider the case manager’s reference to “Postman Pat” and “Aunty” were gentle ways of telling the tenant to stop. November 2024
On 20 and 22 November the applicant sent screen shots of trespass orders that she had made against other tenants to her case manager. She advised KO that they had been thrown back into her garden. Included in the email of 22 November were a lot of other complaints, including reference to an incident in April 2024.
On 22 November the case manager asked the tenant to stop sending her irrelevant emails.
On 26 November 2024 the tenant emailed the case manager complaining about noise coming from another tenancy, and another tenant/s calling out to her husband asking him to come out for a fight, and another tenant swearing at her.
On 27 November 2024 the applicant messaged the case manager again about invitations to her husband to go outside and fight.
The case manager advised that she would raise these matters with the Police and get back to her. The tenant then responded, questioning whether the case manager was taking these issues seriously.
On 28 November 2024 the tenant was advised that the noise complaint was received and would be followed up.
In this regard only, do I find that KO has committed an unlawful act. Complaints were made, and not followed up, and the case manager did not specify which part of the email of 22 November 2024 was irrelevant, thereby giving the tenant the impression that all of the information she was providing was irrelevant.
I consider that this was unfair to the tenant, was an inadequate and damaging response and therefore caused her “worry and distress”.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am making a nominal award of $500.00 in exemplary damages for this breach. I have taken into account the overwhelming nature of communications going to the case manager, the whirly-gig of tenants behaving poorly and the irrefutable evidence that the applicant herself engaged in aggressive and unhelpful behaviour.
Having seen and heard the evidence I consider that KO and the case manager herself did a creditable job of what were ongoing difficult, volatile, and sometimes criminal, behaviour.
Having said that, however, there was the November lapse which needs to be acknowledged. I accept that the tenant felt unheard and isolated as a result of the case manager’s management of her complaints at this time – hence the award of exemplary damages.
Further to this, there is significant public interest in landlord’s abiding by their obligations and, especially in multi-dwelling situations, that they are seen to be acting even-handedly as between the tenants and managing issues promptly.
As well as awarding exemplary damages, I am ordering the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant because the tenant has partly succeeded with their claim.
At the end of the hearing the tenant applied to have their name suppressed. I am allowing that application because I accept that the tenant has gone to considerable lengths to keep her family ‘safe’ and that their privacy is very important to her. I also note that KO supported this application.
I have also suppressed the tenancy address because I do not want there to be any stigma attached to this housing complex, particularly as two families have now been relocated and both parties say that there are no further issues. C ter Haar 27 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118076 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118076 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions