What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5155419 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 5155419?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155419?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155419?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12243832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5155419 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 5155419?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155419?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155419?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12243832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Redacted] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5155419 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] name and identifying details.
Claire Cornwell is to pay [Tenant] $7,527.00 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAward Unlawful entry (s 48 RTA)$1,000.00 Harassment / breach of quiet enjoyment (s 38 RTA)$2,000.00 Retaliatory termination notice (s 54 RTA)$4,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total$7,527.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord attended with her partner and friends as support. The Tenant attended on her own. Three Property Managers attended as witnesses, and were clearly bipartisan, as is their role as witnesses. Background
The premises are situated on a modest rural lifestyle block in Ngakuru: a weatherboard family home set well back from the road, with a freestanding double garage and attached carport, a separate firewood shed, and, at the time of tenanting, a shipping container positioned beside the drive for storage. Several fenced paddocks stretch out in front of and below the house.
A small chicken coop and an area recently planted with young fruit trees sit behind the garage, and stock-proof gates give vehicle access down a gravel drive to the grazing paddock. Water is collected from the roof into tanks and pumped from the garage. Power to the garage also feeds the pump and chest freezer.
This was an idyllic and peaceful setting for raising children, gardening, and keeping a few pet animals, amid rolling paddocks, orchards and a stream (conservation land).
The Tenant states in her application: “We integrated into the community, I enrolled my girls into the local school, we reared livestock and planted vege gardens & flowers, invested time, love & money into the property.”
The parties entered into a periodic tenancy that commenced on 9 August 2024, arranged via Eves, at $550.00 per week ($2,200 bond).
The property is high-maintenance, the Landlord concedes, and the rural lifestyle comes with a significant investment of time and money. The Landlord, her partner, and her good friend, all present at the hearing, have worked hard to care for the conservation land, a significant, year-round commitment.
Aside from routine inspections, the Landlord was bound by s 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). No licence-to-occupy or access agreement was put in place.
As I explained to the Landlord, the practical reality that the property demanded regular, often seasonal attention, cannot override the statutory safeguards in s
The Landlord’s genuine need to undertake maintenance and tend to conservation areas does not create an open-ended right of entry.
In the absence of a written licence or access agreement, every visit beyond the scheduled inspections required advance notice and the Tenant’s consent. Otherwise, the Landlord risked slipping from necessary maintenance and care into unlawful entry and harassment. It is not an excuse to say, but I did not bother the Tenant, or enter into her space. Seeing or hearing or having any contact from the Landlord can infringe a Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, given the ever- present dynamic between Landlord and Tenant, the one who bestows a legal right (against the world) to be on the land, and the other who receives it but knows it to be not as absolute or indefinite a right as that which the Landlord has.
The tension therefore lies not in whether the work was worthwhile, but in how it was conducted. What was included in the tenancy – the tenanted areas?
The listing information stated the tenancy included grazing paddocks by negotiation. In the pre-tenancy visit in August 2024 (the parties did not agree the date, but the Landlord appeared more definite), the Landlord expressly encouraged the Tenant to make the place home, confirmed the family could keep a handful of lambs and raised no objection to the coop being used for hens. The messages between the parties at the start of the tenancy suggest a cordial relationship.
The Landlord was accommodating and warm and made efforts to cultivate a friendship with the Tenant, and that was ultimately the undoing of the tenancy relationship. The Landlord often overstepped boundaries, and the Tenant did not know how to communicate to the Landlord that she felt an imposition.
Nothing in the signed agreement excluded the grazing paddocks, gardens and woodshed, or chicken coop, and for at least the first four months the Tenant grazed two lambs, tended the vegetable beds and stored items in the firewood shed without complaint.
Against that practical reality the Landlord now asserts that the paddock, coop, orchard strip and sheds remained “non-tenanted” and that her entries were therefore permissible.
The Tenant’s position is that, on the balance of the listing, 1 the parties’ discussions and the Landlord’s acquiescence, those external areas formed part of the premises let for the duration of the tenancy.
In the hearing I have explained that the external areas are not determinative for the purposes of s 38, as the Landlord’s frequent visits to any so-called “non- tenanted” areas could still have amounted to harassment in the circumstances.
In early December 2024, the Landlord’s cancelled work contract saw her return to Rotorua and needing to make careful financial decisions and sell some belongings. She made several, ad-hoc visits to the property in relatively short succession, for various maintenance tasks, and to sell items, like a storage container and a freezer.
The Landlord’s messages to the Tenant intensified. The Landlord says she had earmarked the period December 2024 to February 2025 for maintenance, but not all maintenance undertaken had been notified to the Tenant prior to the maintenance period and many of the Landlord’s requests were personal, and not 1 There is the listing which the Landlord has referred me to, and an email which formed the basis of the Tenant’s enquiries. They are essentially the same. Neither contains any clear exclusions. maintenance related. The Landlord’s fall-back position was ‘work needed to be done,’ but that was not correct in all cases, and the Landlord could do nothing to disrupt the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment at the property. During this time, the Landlord inspected the garage, rearranged items inside the house and asked to remove firewood, check the water pump and sell a shipping container. There were other items the Landlord wanted to sell and have buyers collect from the property.
Feeling harassed, the Tenant told the Landlord (albeit quite late in piece, after the Tenant had joined the Landlord for a picnic, and several personal text messages had been exchanged between the pair), that all future contact must go through the property manager.
On 12 March 2025 the Landlord emailed the tenant directly, copying in the property manager, expressing frustration with the property manager’s “poor management” and stating she had “sent [the Tenant] a 42-day notice” because “urgent maintenance tasks require attention and are overdue.”
The Landlord’s change in tone and tenor is palpable. When the Tenant started asserting her right to quiet enjoyment and pushing back at the Landlord to try to reestablish boundaries, the Landlord’s behaviour and position – in respect of the management and control of the property – intensified.
On 13 March 2025, the Landlord served a 42-day notice to end the tenancy effective 24 April 2025. Synopsis of Claims
The Tenant claims: a. Unlawful entry (s 48 RTA); b. Harassment (s 38 RTA); and c. Retaliatory termination notice (s 54 RTA).
The Tenant seeks exemplary damages and name suppression.
The landlord denies wrongdoing and says all visits were either consented to, for maintenance, not on tenanted property, or arranged through the agent.

Did the Landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

The Tenant claims the Landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
Under s 48(1) and (2) RTA a landlord may enter only with consent, proper notice, or in an emergency.
Breaching this provision is an unlawful act attracting up to $1,500 exemplary damages (s 48(4)(a), Schedule 1A).
The Landlord accepts she was on site on 17 January 2025, 21 January 2025 and 3 February 2025, but she justified the visits and did not see them as an interference with the Tenant’s quiet enjoyment. That is as far as I got in terms of hearing the evidence. I advised the parties I would need more time to get through all the other incidents reported by the Tenant, but neither party wanted to return for a further hearing. I have heard enough over two hearings to make my determination.
Video recordings provided by the tenant show the Landlord inside the curtilage, refusing to leave when asked, saying the agent said she could be there.
While 24-hour notice was given, the Tenant had declined access, not unreasonably, and the visits had become too frequent and were not emergencies.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Landlord entered without lawful authority on each occasion. That is an unlawful act.
The Landlord gave notice, but entry was reasonably refused. The Landlord chose to enter anyway and persisted after being told to leave, causing significant distress to the Tenant. As a consequence, the Tenant felt she was engaged in “psychological warfare” with the Landlord and that the Landlord was trying to dominate the situation, making her feel like a stranger on her own property.
On one occasion the Landlord refused to arrange a water delivery unless the Tenant first rearranged and photographed her furniture three times and restrained the dog in several different ways. She said these demands came from the original water contractor, yet the property manager could see no operational reason for them, and nor can I.
After four weeks without water, the Property Manager sourced an alternative supplier who delivered water immediately without incident. The Landlord later explained that her contractor had once been bitten by a dog and wanted assurances the animal was restrained. The Landlord also sought advice from the SPCA about dog restraints. The Tenant received an SPCA notice requiring her to ensure her dog was restrained. Although the Landlord suggests the contractor must have filed that complaint, the available evidence makes that explanation doubtful.
The Tenant felt intimidated, recorded the encounters, and her peace and privacy were disturbed. Tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment of a rural property irrespective of its “high-maintenance” character. The Landlord was required to comply with the RTA and conduct herself in a professional way. That is not what happened here. An award of $1,000 is appropriate.

Did the Landlord harass the Tenant, or otherwise breach her quiet enjoyment?

The Tenant claims ongoing harassment by the Landlord.
Section 38(2) RTA prohibits interference with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy.
Harassment is an unlawful act (s 38(3); Schedule 1A maximum $3,000).
“Harassment” is repeated behaviour that troubles or distresses: MacDonald v Dodds.
Between December 2024 and February 2025, the Landlord: a. sent or received approximately 72-75 messages to the Tenant (of which 39, just over half, were social or unnecessary and not related to landlord access or maintenance); b. on 7 separate occasions, between 1 December 2024 and 3 February 2025, asked to come onto the property: 30 December (checking container/trees), 8 January (garage access for freezer and hammock), 13 January (routine visit the next morning), 17 January (gutters and chimney cleaning – unnecessary entry by Landlord), 21 January (clearing the shipping container), 24 January (overseeing container removal and garden items), and 3 February (landlord and friend inspecting the house, garage and surrounds). c. entered the dwelling to shut windows, rearranged washing, and left notes and messages, under the guise of conducting routine gutter and chimney maintenance at the Tenant’s request (because the Tenant had complained the water tasted funny); d. continued to communicate with the Tenant after being asked on 12 January 2025 to channel communications through Eves. e. contacted the SPCA and reported to the SPCA that the Tenant’s dog required restraining, leading to a notice being served on the Tenant, causing her distress.
I am satisfied that all of these things occurred in the manner the Tenant described, on balance, and formed a pattern that went well beyond normal landlord responsibilities and viewed objectively, wore the Tenant down. The Tenant explained how she felt entrapped and did not know how to get the Landlord to stay away from the property. She tried to be kind, but the Landlord was too familiar, too involved and invested and, to an extent, lacked self-awareness. She did not see the problem, and struggled to show insight into her own behaviour, though her partner, present at the hearing, could see the bigger picture and tried to adjust her view. I am satisfied the cumulative conduct of the Landlord amounted to harassment and therefore to an unlawful act.
While partly motivated by maintenance concerns (there were several personal requests also), the Landlord knowingly continued frequent contact after clear requests to stop and, as time went by, the urgency of the maintenance requests became increasingly self-created and vague.
The Tenant said her anxiety worsened when, despite telling the Landlord she was unwell and would stay inside on one visit, she continued to receive a stream of texts from the Landlord that felt intrusive; are you feeling okay, can I get you anything, I’m on my way (but not at the time she had arranged to visit, for her own ends).
Seeking relief, the Tenant approached the property manager, who, though placed in an awkward position, attended the hearing and confirmed how trying the Landlord’s behaviour had been.
Section 38 shields tenants from landlord overreach, and rural tenancies, with close community ties, are no exception. In light of the Landlord’s repeated breaches, exemplary damages of $2,000 are warranted.

Did the Landlord issue a retaliatory notice on the Tenant?

On 13 March 2025 the Landlord gave a 42-day termination notice to the Tenant.
The notice is valid.
The Tenant must prove the notice was motivated wholly or partly by her exercising a right or making a complaint (s 54(1)).
Issuing a retaliatory notice is an unlawful act (max $6,500; Schedule 1A).
In early March the Tenant had: a. via Eves, complained about unannounced visits (emails 23 January 2025 and 12 March 2025); and b. withheld further consent to entry until proper notice was given.
Within days the Landlord served the 42-day notice, citing “overdue maintenance”. The email the Tenant produced, from the Landlord, show the Landlord was frustrated with “poor management” (of Eves) and the Tenant’s “lack of compliance”. No 14-day breach notices had been served and no non-compliance was proved. The Landlord claimed the Tenant had failed to notify her of a very minor issue with the fireplace. It must be remembered, the Landlord learned of this issue when conducting an unlawful routine inspection of the premises. There is no evidence to suggest the issue was anything more than minor. I am satisfied, on balance, the 42-day notice was motivated at least in part by the Tenant’s complaints. The notice is therefore retaliatory and, the Landlord’s issuing it, an unlawful act.
Abrupt termination forced the Tenant to find alternative accommodation for herself, her twins and pets at short notice, incurring cost and stress. The Tenant gave evidence that she thought the arrangement would be a lasting one and tried to build a life and connect with the community.
Security of tenure is fundamental, and landlords must not issue notices in an intemperate way, to punish tenants or as an easy way out of a situation they have a responsibility to properly carry out.
In light of those factors, I award $4,500. This substantial sum reflects the seriousness of the breach and the Landlord’s limited insight and refusal to take genuine accountability. Her conduct over two hearings, and her continued derogation from clear Tribunal directions (not to submit further evidence or submissions without leave, and not to approach the registry to engage, which, I observed, was being done to have them take a view, or intercede), demonstrate a strong-willed insistence on her own position, warranting a proportionate reprimand to impress upon her the wrongfulness of her actions.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded, her name is suppressed, and I must reimburse the filing fee: $27.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155419 — Cleanliness at [Redacted]

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155419 — Cleanliness at [Redacted]

Order

Reasons

Did the Landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Did the Landlord harass the Tenant, or otherwise breach her quiet enjoyment?

Did the Landlord issue a retaliatory notice on the Tenant?

Order

Reasons

Did the Landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Did the Landlord harass the Tenant, or otherwise breach her quiet enjoyment?

Did the Landlord issue a retaliatory notice on the Tenant?