What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120956 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5120956?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120956?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13814048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120956 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5120956?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120956?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13814048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120956 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 December 2025 and 11 June 2026.
The tenant, as applicant, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for: a. trying to get him to do a professional clean of the property when he was only obliged to leave the premises to reasonably clean and tidy, b. breach of his quiet enjoyment, and harassment, when the landlord made a false charge of assault against him in order to get him evicted, and c. issuing him with an unlawful trespass notice while he was still a tenant.
I address each of those claims as follows. Did the landlord try to impose a greater obligation on the tenant when making a claim against the bond for professional cleaning costs?
While the landlord’s property manager made a claim for cleaning costs against the bond, that claim was subsequently withdrawn, and the landlord did not pursue it. For this reason alone, there is no longer any basis for the tenant argue that the landlord had tried to impose a greater obligation on the tenant than is required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘the Act’).
Even if the landlord had continued to pursue their claim for cleaning costs, it is arguable whether the tenant had in fact left the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy given what has transpired leading to the tenant being charged for assaulting the landlord and having his tenancy terminated as a result.
Further, in the event the landlord’s claim for professional cleaning charges had been fully prosecuted by the landlord but was dismissed by the Tribunal or its quantum of cleaning costs being reduced to a cleaning that is reasonably clean and tidy standard only rather than a higher professional standard, the dismissal of the claim or reduction of the claim is commonplace and not by itself indicative that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Parties to tenancy claims often have different viewpoints on standards of cleanliness and it is not against public policy to have those different positions argued and defended at the Tribunal.
In the upshot, I do not consider that the landlord has committed an unlawful act or acted unreasonably in filing a claim for cleaning costs against the bond, which was subsequently withdrawn with no adverse consequence to the tenant.
The Tribunal is obliged under section 85 of the Act to exercise its jurisdiction in the following manner: Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the landlord had acted improperly for having disputed the bond refund to the tenant in full and filing a claim against the bond initially.
I now address the tenant’s claim that the landlord made a false charge of assault against him in order to get him evicted.

Did the landlord make a false charge of assault against the tenant?

The tenant testified that he was falsely and unreasonably arrested by the police on 21 January 2024 when the landlord used the police to terminate his tenancy.
The tenant contends that the landlord had calculated ending his tenancy while previous Tribunal proceedings were underway because all it takes for him to be evicted is for a charge of assault on landlord to be laid against him.
The tenant says that his life was ruined because of what the landlord had done.
The tenant narrated his background of having sold the property to the landlord at a substantial discount of $100,000.
The tenant contends that the landlord owes him $16,000 for driveway that he put on the property while he was a tenant. This was not accepted by Adjudicator S Young in previous Tribunal proceedings filed under applications [4XXXXX, 4XXXXX].
After landscaping the place and putting gravel on the driveway, the tenant gave the landlord an invoice. I reiterate that Adjudicator Young has already declined to award any reimbursement of that cost to the tenant previously.
Because the landlord refused to pay, the tenant says that he tried to get a digger operator to quote before he digs up the driveway, and remove the gravel and landscaping in order “to put it back how it was”.
The landlord then used her lawyer to say that she cannot be asked to pay for the work that he had done. So, the tenant asked the digger driver to come and scope the proposed “reinstatement” works.
The tenant says that the landlord threatened to trespass his digger operator, and closed one of the gates to stop the driver “so that she can harass him”.
As the landlord closed one of the gates, the tenant started recording her, asking her why she was harassing him.
The tenant’s intent was to ask whether she was going to allow the digger operator to take away the driveway. The tenant concedes that he only found out it was unlawful to damage the driveway (in the manner that he proposed) later.
A few days later, the tenant invited the digger operator to come back to help him. He said he merely wanted to talk to the landlord in a “calm, non- confrontational way”, to allow the digger operator to take away the gravel. He suspected at the time that he will be trespassed from the property.
The tenant said that he then calmly and professionally recorded the landlord on his phone.
The tenant said that he only went over to ask for “permission” to dig out the driveway. The tenant maintained that he was “trying to de-escalate” the situation.
The tenant accused the landlord of hindering him, “closing the gate just to harass him”.
The tenant adduced the video recording in question at the hearing before me.
The video recording shows that the landlord was actively declining to engage with tenant when being filmed.
Rather than confront the landlord in the manner that the tenant did, I consider that should have claimed for reimbursement of the driveway costs in the civil courts or even the Disputes Tribunal.
As it is, the tenant was already unsuccessful in arguing those costs at the earlier Tenancy Tribunal proceedings.
I do not consider the landlord to be at fault for trying to prevent property damage to the driveway threatened by the tenant. It would have been clearly unlawful if the tenant did carry out his threat to dig out the driveway.
I consider the landlord’s response in refusing to engage with the tenant reasonable under the circumstances.
There is no evidence that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment here.
The video recording showed that it was the tenant who was baiting the landlord who has not responded in kind. She was actively trying to get away, asking the tenant not to record her and to stay out of her personal space.
I consider the actions of the tenant putting the camera right to the landlord’s face confrontational and rude.
The landlord then tried to take the phone off the tenant in order to delete the video recording. But this was not an attempt to “provoke the tenant” as the tenant contends. Faced with such behaviour by the tenant, it was understandable for the landlord to respond in the manner that she did.
Be that as it may, there was no evidence of the landlord assaulting the tenant before me.
I reject the tenant’s allegation that the landlord “threw herself on the floor” and screamed “assault, assault, assault” in order to frame him.
The tenant was subsequently charged by the police for assaulting the landlord and assaulting police.
Diversion was offered and accepted by the tenant. There is therefore a presumption of guilt to the police charges of assault on the landlord, and police.
It is not in order for the tenant to now deny that he has ever assaulted the landlord. It would be unsafe and contrary to law for me to conclude otherwise.
For the above reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the landlord made a false charge of assault against him in order to get him evicted.
I now address the remaining claim that the landlord issued him with an unlawful trespass notice while he was still a tenant.

Did the landlord issue the tenant with an unlawful trespass notice?

The landlord served a trespass notice to the tenant; the tenant maintains it was not lawful for a such a notice to be issued to him while he was still a lawful tenant and occupier of the legal title of 5 [address road] .
The tenant submits that I must take a strict legal approach to the landlord’s issuance of the trespass notice to him.
While the tenancy of the shipping container that was converted by the tenant (as former owner) was described as 5A [address road] , there is in fact and in law no address known as 5A [address road] .
The only legal address of the property is 5 [address road] which comprises the landlord’s 3 bedroom house and the tenant’s converted shipping container. The landlord and tenant also have a shared driveway to their respective premises.
For that reason, the tenant says that the police improperly charged and arrested him for breaching a trespass notice. The police has advised the tenant to avoid the landlord.
The initial charge of wilful trespass was later dropped because the police accepted the tenant’s counsel’s submission that the entire legal title is only 5 [address road] , there being no such address as 5A [address road] .
However, I find that the intent of the landlord’s issuance of the trespass notice was only directed against the tenant from coming onto her 3 bedroom, single storey house.
The situation would have been different if the landlord’s intent on issuance of the trespass notice was to eject the tenant from the entire legal parcel of 5 [address road] which included the tenancy address 5A [address road] . If that had been the landlord’s intent when she issued the trespass notice, I would have found the landlord to be in breach for attempting an unlawful eviction.
While the police have since dropped the wilful trespass charge against tenant on the above technical grounds, the Tenancy Tribunal is required under section 85 of the Act to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, rather than be bound to give effect to strict legal technicalities.
I accept the landlord’s evidence and the actual effect at the material time of the trespass notice that her intent was only to trespass the tenant from her 3- bedroom house at 5 [address road] which she is entitled to do.
The landlord has not tried to prevent the tenant from returning to the tenant’s premises at 5A [address road] which has been duly tenanted to him.
The tenant has threatened to effect substantial property damage to the driveway (by digging it up and removing landscaping and gravel) and under the circumstances, I do not consider the landlord’s issuance of the trespass notice to her own property to have been unreasonably taken.
I acknowledge the tenant’s position that he had negotiated a cheap rent in consideration of giving the landlord $100,000 discount on the previous sale of the property to the landlord.
The video playback however shows the landlord trying to run away from the tenant upon being confronted, but the tenant repeatedly held his mobile phone against her face. The tenant continued to follow the landlord, accusing the landlord of being a “thief”.
The video clearly shows that the tenant has placed the phone to the landlord’s face, invading her personal space in a very uncomfortable manner.
The tenant’s complaints of suffering PTSD from allegations of assault by third parties and the police are not matters which the Tenancy Tribunal can adjudicate upon.
Similarly, now that the tenant no longer resides at 5A [address road] (the tenancy having come to an end), the alleged continuation of harassment by the landlord after having been recently served with another trespass notice by the police, after the tenant has left the premises, are not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. Complaints of breach of quiet enjoyment under the Act is limited to the tenant’s use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
In the upshot, I reject the tenant’s assertion that the landlord has given him an unlawful trespass notice on the tenanted premises that he was legally occupying at the material times prior to the end of his tenancy.
For those reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation, including for mental stress, and exemplary damages against the landlord for breach of his quiet enjoyment and harassment fails.
Lastly, I agree with the landlord that there should be finality to litigation, in particular after Adjudicator Young has already traversed most of the tenant’s claims, including overlapping ones at the Tribunal, more than 2 years ago now.
The landlord is wholly successful in defending these tenant’s claims before me. I order the suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 December 2025 and 11 June 2026.

The tenant, as applicant, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for: a. trying to get him to do a professional clean of the property when he was only obliged to leave the premises to reasonably clean and tidy, b. breach of his quiet enjoyment, and harassment, when the landlord made a false charge of assault against him in order to get him evicted, and c. issuing him with an unlawful trespass notice while he was still a tenant.

I address each of those claims as follows. Did the landlord try to impose a greater obligation on the tenant when making a claim against the bond for professional cleaning costs?

While the landlord’s property manager made a claim for cleaning costs against the bond, that claim was subsequently withdrawn, and the landlord did not pursue it. For this reason alone, there is no longer any basis for the tenant argue that the landlord had tried to impose a greater obligation on the tenant than is required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘the Act’).

Even if the landlord had continued to pursue their claim for cleaning costs, it is arguable whether the tenant had in fact left the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy given what has transpired leading to the tenant being charged for assaulting the landlord and having his tenancy terminated as a result.

Further, in the event the landlord’s claim for professional cleaning charges had been fully prosecuted by the landlord but was dismissed by the Tribunal or its quantum of cleaning costs being reduced to a cleaning that is reasonably clean and tidy standard only rather than a higher professional standard, the dismissal of the claim or reduction of the claim is commonplace and not by itself indicative that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Parties to tenancy claims often have different viewpoints on standards of cleanliness and it is not against public policy to have those different positions argued and defended at the Tribunal.

In the upshot, I do not consider that the landlord has committed an unlawful act or acted unreasonably in filing a claim for cleaning costs against the bond, which was subsequently withdrawn with no adverse consequence to the tenant.

The Tribunal is obliged under section 85 of the Act to exercise its jurisdiction in the following manner: Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the landlord had acted improperly for having disputed the bond refund to the tenant in full and filing a claim against the bond initially.

I now address the tenant’s claim that the landlord made a false charge of assault against him in order to get him evicted.

Did the landlord make a false charge of assault against the tenant?

The tenant testified that he was falsely and unreasonably arrested by the police on 21 January 2024 when the landlord used the police to terminate his tenancy.

The tenant contends that the landlord had calculated ending his tenancy while previous Tribunal proceedings were underway because all it takes for him to be evicted is for a charge of assault on landlord to be laid against him.

The tenant says that his life was ruined because of what the landlord had done.

The tenant narrated his background of having sold the property to the landlord at a substantial discount of $100,000.

The tenant contends that the landlord owes him $16,000 for driveway that he put on the property while he was a tenant. This was not accepted by Adjudicator S Young in previous Tribunal proceedings filed under applications [4XXXXX, 4XXXXX].

After landscaping the place and putting gravel on the driveway, the tenant gave the landlord an invoice. I reiterate that Adjudicator Young has already declined to award any reimbursement of that cost to the tenant previously.

Because the landlord refused to pay, the tenant says that he tried to get a digger operator to quote before he digs up the driveway, and remove the gravel and landscaping in order “to put it back how it was”.

The landlord then used her lawyer to say that she cannot be asked to pay for the work that he had done. So, the tenant asked the digger driver to come and scope the proposed “reinstatement” works.

The tenant says that the landlord threatened to trespass his digger operator, and closed one of the gates to stop the driver “so that she can harass him”.

As the landlord closed one of the gates, the tenant started recording her, asking her why she was harassing him.

The tenant’s intent was to ask whether she was going to allow the digger operator to take away the driveway. The tenant concedes that he only found out it was unlawful to damage the driveway (in the manner that he proposed) later.

A few days later, the tenant invited the digger operator to come back to help him. He said he merely wanted to talk to the landlord in a “calm, non- confrontational way”, to allow the digger operator to take away the gravel. He suspected at the time that he will be trespassed from the property.

The tenant said that he then calmly and professionally recorded the landlord on his phone.

The tenant said that he only went over to ask for “permission” to dig out the driveway. The tenant maintained that he was “trying to de-escalate” the situation.

The tenant accused the landlord of hindering him, “closing the gate just to harass him”.

The tenant adduced the video recording in question at the hearing before me.

The video recording shows that the landlord was actively declining to engage with tenant when being filmed.

Rather than confront the landlord in the manner that the tenant did, I consider that should have claimed for reimbursement of the driveway costs in the civil courts or even the Disputes Tribunal.

As it is, the tenant was already unsuccessful in arguing those costs at the earlier Tenancy Tribunal proceedings.

I do not consider the landlord to be at fault for trying to prevent property damage to the driveway threatened by the tenant. It would have been clearly unlawful if the tenant did carry out his threat to dig out the driveway.

I consider the landlord’s response in refusing to engage with the tenant reasonable under the circumstances.

There is no evidence that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment here.

The video recording showed that it was the tenant who was baiting the landlord who has not responded in kind. She was actively trying to get away, asking the tenant not to record her and to stay out of her personal space.

I consider the actions of the tenant putting the camera right to the landlord’s face confrontational and rude.

The landlord then tried to take the phone off the tenant in order to delete the video recording. But this was not an attempt to “provoke the tenant” as the tenant contends. Faced with such behaviour by the tenant, it was understandable for the landlord to respond in the manner that she did.

Be that as it may, there was no evidence of the landlord assaulting the tenant before me.

I reject the tenant’s allegation that the landlord “threw herself on the floor” and screamed “assault, assault, assault” in order to frame him.

The tenant was subsequently charged by the police for assaulting the landlord and assaulting police.

Diversion was offered and accepted by the tenant. There is therefore a presumption of guilt to the police charges of assault on the landlord, and police.

It is not in order for the tenant to now deny that he has ever assaulted the landlord. It would be unsafe and contrary to law for me to conclude otherwise.

For the above reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the landlord made a false charge of assault against him in order to get him evicted.

I now address the remaining claim that the landlord issued him with an unlawful trespass notice while he was still a tenant.

Did the landlord issue the tenant with an unlawful trespass notice?

The landlord served a trespass notice to the tenant; the tenant maintains it was not lawful for a such a notice to be issued to him while he was still a lawful tenant and occupier of the legal title of 5 [address road] .

The tenant submits that I must take a strict legal approach to the landlord’s issuance of the trespass notice to him.

While the tenancy of the shipping container that was converted by the tenant (as former owner) was described as 5A [address road] , there is in fact and in law no address known as 5A [address road] .

The only legal address of the property is 5 [address road] which comprises the landlord’s 3 bedroom house and the tenant’s converted shipping container. The landlord and tenant also have a shared driveway to their respective premises.

For that reason, the tenant says that the police improperly charged and arrested him for breaching a trespass notice. The police has advised the tenant to avoid the landlord.

The initial charge of wilful trespass was later dropped because the police accepted the tenant’s counsel’s submission that the entire legal title is only 5 [address road] , there being no such address as 5A [address road] .

However, I find that the intent of the landlord’s issuance of the trespass notice was only directed against the tenant from coming onto her 3 bedroom, single storey house.

The situation would have been different if the landlord’s intent on issuance of the trespass notice was to eject the tenant from the entire legal parcel of 5 [address road] which included the tenancy address 5A [address road] . If that had been the landlord’s intent when she issued the trespass notice, I would have found the landlord to be in breach for attempting an unlawful eviction.

While the police have since dropped the wilful trespass charge against tenant on the above technical grounds, the Tenancy Tribunal is required under section 85 of the Act to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, rather than be bound to give effect to strict legal technicalities.

I accept the landlord’s evidence and the actual effect at the material time of the trespass notice that her intent was only to trespass the tenant from her 3- bedroom house at 5 [address road] which she is entitled to do.

The landlord has not tried to prevent the tenant from returning to the tenant’s premises at 5A [address road] which has been duly tenanted to him.

The tenant has threatened to effect substantial property damage to the driveway (by digging it up and removing landscaping and gravel) and under the circumstances, I do not consider the landlord’s issuance of the trespass notice to her own property to have been unreasonably taken.

I acknowledge the tenant’s position that he had negotiated a cheap rent in consideration of giving the landlord $100,000 discount on the previous sale of the property to the landlord.

The video playback however shows the landlord trying to run away from the tenant upon being confronted, but the tenant repeatedly held his mobile phone against her face. The tenant continued to follow the landlord, accusing the landlord of being a “thief”.

The video clearly shows that the tenant has placed the phone to the landlord’s face, invading her personal space in a very uncomfortable manner.

The tenant’s complaints of suffering PTSD from allegations of assault by third parties and the police are not matters which the Tenancy Tribunal can adjudicate upon.

Similarly, now that the tenant no longer resides at 5A [address road] (the tenancy having come to an end), the alleged continuation of harassment by the landlord after having been recently served with another trespass notice by the police, after the tenant has left the premises, are not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. Complaints of breach of quiet enjoyment under the Act is limited to the tenant’s use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

In the upshot, I reject the tenant’s assertion that the landlord has given him an unlawful trespass notice on the tenanted premises that he was legally occupying at the material times prior to the end of his tenancy.

For those reasons, the tenant’s claim for compensation, including for mental stress, and exemplary damages against the landlord for breach of his quiet enjoyment and harassment fails.

Lastly, I agree with the landlord that there should be finality to litigation, in particular after Adjudicator Young has already traversed most of the tenant’s claims, including overlapping ones at the Tribunal, more than 2 years ago now.

The landlord is wholly successful in defending these tenant’s claims before me. I order the suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120956 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120956 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord make a false charge of assault against the tenant?

Did the landlord issue the tenant with an unlawful trespass notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord make a false charge of assault against the tenant?

Did the landlord issue the tenant with an unlawful trespass notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions